Prospective Summer Walks Over Moscow Work Forum

[Anonymous User]

This thread is bananas

Here’s my justification for going into big law, maybe someone can poke holes in it. I support America becoming a Nordic-style welfare state with single payer health care, free public college, etc. However, in that society the private sector would still exist. IE not true state ownership of the means of production (which I think is a bad idea). Thus I am okay with working for a company, but will continue to put my vote toward income redistribution and bigger social spending (and heavy regulation of those companies on environmental/human rights grounds)

Deluded 1L? Coherent worldview?

Imagine being like Europe 0/10. Incoherent on that reason alone. Otherwise, do as you will. Personally I think there are significantly superior alternatives to BL and dislike corporate work, but that's because I think it's boring and anti-intellectual, not out of any moral stipulations.

Socialist nonsense

Yeah, don't care. Have you met the average worker? They don't have the vision to be managing large-scale enterprises. You need some form of top-down control for that. The USSR didn't do a lot right, but it understood that actually handing control to workers was a TERRIBLE idea. If we're not going to have a proper cowboy capitalist society, we need centralized structure. Libleft continues to make poor calls.

And what are these pro-intellectual legal alternatives?

[Anonymous User]

This thread is bananas

Here’s my justification for going into big law, maybe someone can poke holes in it. I support America becoming a Nordic-style welfare state with single payer health care, free public college, etc. However, in that society the private sector would still exist. IE not true state ownership of the means of production (which I think is a bad idea). Thus I am okay with working for a company, but will continue to put my vote toward income redistribution and bigger social spending (and heavy regulation of those companies on environmental/human rights grounds)

Deluded 1L? Coherent worldview?

Imagine being like Europe 0/10. Incoherent on that reason alone. Otherwise, do as you will. Personally I think there are significantly superior alternatives to BL and dislike corporate work, but that's because I think it's boring and anti-intellectual, not out of any moral stipulations.

Socialist nonsense

Yeah, don't care. Have you met the average worker? They don't have the vision to be managing large-scale enterprises. You need some form of top-down control for that. The USSR didn't do a lot right, but it understood that actually handing control to workers was a TERRIBLE idea. If we're not going to have a proper cowboy capitalist society, we need centralized structure. Libleft continues to make poor calls.

And what are these pro-intellectual legal alternatives?

Depends on your interests, but academia/DOJ Honors/meaningful public interest work all are more intellectual and interesting than biglaw.

[axiomaticapiary]

This thread is bananas

Here’s my justification for going into big law, maybe someone can poke holes in it. I support America becoming a Nordic-style welfare state with single payer health care, free public college, etc. However, in that society the private sector would still exist. IE not true state ownership of the means of production (which I think is a bad idea). Thus I am okay with working for a company, but will continue to put my vote toward income redistribution and bigger social spending (and heavy regulation of those companies on environmental/human rights grounds)

Deluded 1L? Coherent worldview?

Spending your days helping megacorps avoid the taxes, regulations and liability they were ostensibly intended to face (and which you appear to support) and then turning around and voting for a fairer/more equitable society is a bit like endorsing DUI checkpoints while you drive drunk every night. You're advocating to fix a problem you keep exacerbating.

I'm the original anon, I understand where you're coming from but I think this is a false analogy. The reason is that if you endorse DUI checkpoints, you believe there should be legal liability for drunk driving, and if you drive drunk, you have then violated that law which you supported. If you endorse stronger regulations and liability and taxes for corporations, you believe they should be subject to those measures; if you work for the corporation, you are not helping them violate those measures you supported, but helping them achieve a favorable outcome within the legal constraints of the regulatory framework. "Driving drunk" in this scenario is being a white collar criminal, not helping them save money on their taxes.

Even worker-owned co-ops, like Saami mentioned, would have some sort of specialist to help them do their taxes, defend them in a neutral forum when disputes inevitably arise, and help them merge with another worker-owned co-op (presumably if everyone voted to do so)

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

If you endorse stronger regulations and liability and taxes for corporations, you believe they should be subject to those measures; if you work for the corporation, you are not helping them violate those measures you supported, but helping them achieve a favorable outcome within the legal constraints of the regulatory framework.

Don't pull this fucking trickster pedantry and then come on here asking if it's ethical. It's not, and you've obviously gotten over that.

Did you see my quoted post earlier in the thread with the "Oh I don't support X; that's just what the law says; someone really oughta change the law?" That's you, and you're the 5,000th associate to use that one to convince yourself (if you're actually convinced of it and not just trying to bullshit others).

Yes of course it's *legal* for some New York bank to run offshore vehicles through the Caymans for no taxes and incorporate in Delaware so no rules apply to them and keep plan assets at 24.9% so they don't trip ERISA. That's what we're here to tell them. The mere fact that there are legal ways to do those things does not mean that's how New York, or the federal government, intended to tax and regulate that bank. Which of course you know even though you're pretending to be ignorant.

[Anonymous User]

If you endorse stronger regulations and liability and taxes for corporations, you believe they should be subject to those measures; if you work for the corporation, you are not helping them violate those measures you supported, but helping them achieve a favorable outcome within the legal constraints of the regulatory framework.

Don't pull this fucking trickster pedantry and then come on here asking if it's ethical. It's not, and you've obviously gotten over that.

Did you see my quoted post earlier in the thread with the "Oh I don't support X; that's just what the law says; someone really oughta change the law?" That's you, and you're the 5,000th associate to use that one to convince yourself (if you're actually convinced of it and not just trying to bullshit others).

Yes of course it's *legal* for some New York bank to run offshore vehicles through the Caymans for no taxes and incorporate in Delaware so no rules apply to them and keep plan assets at 24.9% so they don't trip ERISA. That's what we're here to tell them. The mere fact that there are legal ways to do those things does not mean that's how New York, or the federal government, intended to tax and regulate that bank. Which of course you know even though you're pretending to be ignorant.

My perspective is that I'm too poor to do an ethical job. With no inherited wealth and no trust fund, I can't afford to work at the Anti Defamation League or write self-righteous thinkpieces for The Atlantic or NYT. Doing biglaw is how I survive. I don't even try to rationalize that the work is ethical.

It's cute when I see rich kids go do Doctors without Borders, or start a social impact focused VC fund, but that stuff is a luxury.

[clarion]

If you endorse stronger regulations and liability and taxes for corporations, you believe they should be subject to those measures; if you work for the corporation, you are not helping them violate those measures you supported, but helping them achieve a favorable outcome within the legal constraints of the regulatory framework.

Don't pull this fucking trickster pedantry and then come on here asking if it's ethical. It's not, and you've obviously gotten over that.

Did you see my quoted post earlier in the thread with the "Oh I don't support X; that's just what the law says; someone really oughta change the law?" That's you, and you're the 5,000th associate to use that one to convince yourself (if you're actually convinced of it and not just trying to bullshit others).

Yes of course it's *legal* for some New York bank to run offshore vehicles through the Caymans for no taxes and incorporate in Delaware so no rules apply to them and keep plan assets at 24.9% so they don't trip ERISA. That's what we're here to tell them. The mere fact that there are legal ways to do those things does not mean that's how New York, or the federal government, intended to tax and regulate that bank. Which of course you know even though you're pretending to be ignorant.

My perspective is that I'm too poor to do an ethical job. With no inherited wealth and no trust fund, I can't afford to work at the Anti Defamation League or write self-righteous thinkpieces for The Atlantic or NYT. Doing biglaw is how I survive. I don't even try to rationalize that the work is ethical.

It's cute when I see rich kids go do Doctors without Borders, or start a social impact focused VC fund, but that stuff is a luxury.

I'm not really one to tell people how to be, but it's a peeve of mine when people are dishonest with themselves. I won't even go into whether biglaw is soul-sucking or whatever, but you are not too poor to do work that is less objectionable than the work that one does in biglaw. 4 years in the federal gov will have you earning over $120k, which is plenty of money for plenty of people. The fact that you want to earn twice that sooner than 4 years out of law school is fine; but, don't pretend as if you have no other choice. Own it.

Maybe you meant to say "I'm too poor to do an ethical job if I also want to be able to live a life of (largely) unbridled luxury?"

[Anonymous User]

I'm not really one to tell people how to be, but it's a peeve of mine when people are dishonest with themselves. I won't even go into whether biglaw is soul-sucking or whatever, but you are not too poor to do work that is less objectionable than the work that one does in biglaw. 4 years in the federal gov will have you earning over $120k, which is plenty of money for plenty of people. The fact that you want to earn twice that sooner than 4 years out of law school is fine; but, don't pretend as if you have no other choice. Own it.

Maybe you meant to say "I'm too poor to do an ethical job if I also want to be able to live a life of (largely) unbridled luxury?"

How dare you suggest that $235,000 is anything more than a subsistence wage!

[Anonymous User]

If you endorse stronger regulations and liability and taxes for corporations, you believe they should be subject to those measures; if you work for the corporation, you are not helping them violate those measures you supported, but helping them achieve a favorable outcome within the legal constraints of the regulatory framework.

Don't pull this fucking trickster pedantry and then come on here asking if it's ethical. It's not, and you've obviously gotten over that.

Did you see my quoted post earlier in the thread with the "Oh I don't support X; that's just what the law says; someone really oughta change the law?" That's you, and you're the 5,000th associate to use that one to convince yourself (if you're actually convinced of it and not just trying to bullshit others).

Yes of course it's *legal* for some New York bank to run offshore vehicles through the Caymans for no taxes and incorporate in Delaware so no rules apply to them and keep plan assets at 24.9% so they don't trip ERISA. That's what we're here to tell them. The mere fact that there are legal ways to do those things does not mean that's how New York, or the federal government, intended to tax and regulate that bank. Which of course you know even though you're pretending to be ignorant.

My perspective is that I'm too poor to do an ethical job. With no inherited wealth and no trust fund, I can't afford to work at the Anti Defamation League or write self-righteous thinkpieces for The Atlantic or NYT. Doing biglaw is how I survive. I don't even try to rationalize that the work is ethical.

It's cute when I see rich kids go do Doctors without Borders, or start a social impact focused VC fund, but that stuff is a luxury.

I'm not really one to tell people how to be, but it's a peeve of mine when people are dishonest with themselves. I won't even go into whether biglaw is soul-sucking or whatever, but you are not too poor to do work that is less objectionable than the work that one does in biglaw. 4 years in the federal gov will have you earning over $120k, which is plenty of money for plenty of people. The fact that you want to earn twice that sooner than 4 years out of law school is fine; but, don't pretend as if you have no other choice. Own it.

Maybe you meant to say "I'm too poor to do an ethical job if I also want to be able to live a life of (largely) unbridled luxury?"

I don't believe that an income is middle class simply because it falls in the middle of the income distribution. In my opinion, the vast majority of people are poor.

Biglaw is nowhere close to unbridled luxury. I have a 600 square foot one bedroom apartment in Manhattan and no car. Maybe I could move to Jersey City or Queens and get a 2 bedroom. That's not living large, except in cherry picked comparisons to folks who are even poorer than I am.

[clarion]

I don't believe that an income is middle class simply because it falls in the middle of the income distribution. In my opinion, the vast majority of people are poor.

Biglaw is nowhere close to unbridled luxury. I have a 600 square foot one bedroom apartment in Manhattan and no car. Maybe I could move to Jersey City or Queens and get a 2 bedroom. That's not living large, except in cherry picked comparisons to folks who are even poorer than I am.

I will clarify that living on a 2nd year associate salary is not, in fact, a caviar life. That wasn't what I meant to communicate. But biglaw equity partner pay at most firms (what I was actually referring to) is luxury. Maybe it's not "tech company CEO" or "I'm committing tax fraud, telemarketing fraud or stealing from my class action clients to maintain a lifestyle well beyond reason" luxury; but, it's luxury.

That said, I can tell from the first two sentences and the last sentence of your comment that you have fully committed to the lie that one cannot be happy without making staggering amounts of money. To say that other people are "poorer than you are" and therefore, as the other anon put it, $235,000 is actually a subsistence wage, is such an unhinged thing to say that I don't think there's anything left for us to say to one another.

I hope you find what you're looking for--but I'm going to go ahead and suggest that it's probably not money you need.

[Saami]

My perspective is that I'm too poor to do an ethical job. With no inherited wealth and no trust fund, I can't afford to work at the Anti Defamation League or write self-righteous thinkpieces for The Atlantic or NYT. Doing biglaw is how I survive. I don't even try to rationalize that the work is ethical.

It's cute when I see rich kids go do Doctors without Borders, or start a social impact focused VC fund, but that stuff is a luxury.

I'm supporting myself, my wife, and my son all on my $77k public interest salary (in the NYC area, mind you). I grew up in a household whose income often dipped below the federal poverty level. While I don't pass judgment on honest biglaw associates who just admit that they want to make a lot of money, I despise associates like you who act like you need to earn $200k+ to get by. Sure, you may not be able to live large off a sub-six-figure salary, but you can 100% live comfortably.

[Anonymous User]

This is such a dumb tangent argument.

1. It is in fact very easy to spend a biglaw associate salary on a middle class lifestyle if you live in a high cost of living and/or are supporting other people. Healthcare, taxes, debt, mortgage, housing upkeep, minivan, daycare and schools, food, etc. Some people have parents they support. This is without fancy cars, restaurants, expensive vacations. Maybe it looks different for seniors making 500k or partners making millions. Or for unattached juniors. But people aren't lying about needing 250-300 to live a normal lifestyle.

2. The choice isn't between making 200+ and making 150 or whatever. Outside of biglaw the salaries really are not livable by any metric. And indeed many associates leave biglaw as soon as they have other options they can live off.

[Saami]

But people aren't lying about needing 250-300 to live a normal lifestyle.

Yes they are. They are 100% full of shit, either because they're in denial, or are terrible at managing finances.

[Anonymous User]

But people aren't lying about needing 250-300 to live a normal lifestyle.

Yes they are. They are 100% full of shit.

Ah the tankie popped up

[Anonymous User]

This is such a dumb tangent argument.

1. It is in fact very easy to spend a biglaw associate salary on a middle class lifestyle if you live in a high cost of living and/or are supporting other people. Healthcare, taxes, debt, mortgage, housing upkeep, minivan, daycare and schools, food, etc. Some people have parents they support. This is without fancy cars, restaurants, expensive vacations. Maybe it looks different for seniors making 500k or partners making millions. Or for unattached juniors. But people aren't lying about needing 250-300 to live a normal lifestyle.

2. The choice isn't between making 200+ and making 150 or whatever. Outside of biglaw the salaries really are not livable by any metric. And indeed many associates leave biglaw as soon as they have other options they can live off.

You don't need $250K to live a normal lifestyle. Source: someone who grew up in a family of 5 with a total family income of about $55K. Spend less money if you are having problems.

$250K is in the top 5% of incomes. The world's smallest violin is playing for people who can't get by with that income.

[clarion]

This is such a dumb tangent argument.

1. It is in fact very easy to spend a biglaw associate salary on a middle class lifestyle if you live in a high cost of living and/or are supporting other people. Healthcare, taxes, debt, mortgage, housing upkeep, minivan, daycare and schools, food, etc. Some people have parents they support. This is without fancy cars, restaurants, expensive vacations. Maybe it looks different for seniors making 500k or partners making millions. Or for unattached juniors. But people aren't lying about needing 250-300 to live a normal lifestyle.

2. The choice isn't between making 200+ and making 150 or whatever. Outside of biglaw the salaries really are not livable by any metric. And indeed many associates leave biglaw as soon as they have other options they can live off.

1. Correct. But to say "I have to do work that I hate and that makes the world worse off [not my words] because I am not privileged enough not to", is the part that's incorrect.

You can spend a biglaw salary on a middle class lifestyle in NYC. I agreed that single-income $235k in NYC is not a caviar life. But you can also make less than that doing other work (and/or you know, leaving NYC) and still live a comfortable life. So saying you HAVE to work biglaw to survive is lying to yourself. I stand by that.

2. "Not livable by any metric." Weird.

[Anonymous User]

This is such a dumb tangent argument.

1. It is in fact very easy to spend a biglaw associate salary on a middle class lifestyle if you live in a high cost of living and/or are supporting other people. Healthcare, taxes, debt, mortgage, housing upkeep, minivan, daycare and schools, food, etc. Some people have parents they support. This is without fancy cars, restaurants, expensive vacations. Maybe it looks different for seniors making 500k or partners making millions. Or for unattached juniors. But people aren't lying about needing 250-300 to live a normal lifestyle.

2. The choice isn't between making 200+ and making 150 or whatever. Outside of biglaw the salaries really are not livable by any metric. And indeed many associates leave biglaw as soon as they have other options they can live off.

You don't need $250K to live a normal lifestyle. Source: someone who grew up in a family of 5 with a total family income of about $55K. Spend less money if you are having problems.

$250K is in the top 5% of incomes. The world's smallest violin is playing for people who can't get by with that income.

I'm not asking for sympathy, and I never said I have problems. Just stating facts about how much a decent but not extravagant lifestyle costs. Sure, there are choices we made that contribute to the budget (biggest of which is probably schooling). I want to give my children things I didn't have. I'm glad I can provide that. I honestly don't really care what you think about this, just can't stand the accusations of lying.

55k is a silly number tho. I spend about that on just healthcare and housing. I can't do anything about those expenses. (And then there's food, clothing, cars, etc etc)

[clarion]

This is such a dumb tangent argument.

1. It is in fact very easy to spend a biglaw associate salary on a middle class lifestyle if you live in a high cost of living and/or are supporting other people. Healthcare, taxes, debt, mortgage, housing upkeep, minivan, daycare and schools, food, etc. Some people have parents they support. This is without fancy cars, restaurants, expensive vacations. Maybe it looks different for seniors making 500k or partners making millions. Or for unattached juniors. But people aren't lying about needing 250-300 to live a normal lifestyle.

2. The choice isn't between making 200+ and making 150 or whatever. Outside of biglaw the salaries really are not livable by any metric. And indeed many associates leave biglaw as soon as they have other options they can live off.

You don't need $250K to live a normal lifestyle. Source: someone who grew up in a family of 5 with a total family income of about $55K. Spend less money if you are having problems.

$250K is in the top 5% of incomes. The world's smallest violin is playing for people who can't get by with that income.

I'm not asking for sympathy, and I never said I have problems. Just stating facts about how much a decent but not extravagant lifestyle costs. Sure, there are choices we made that contribute to the budget (biggest of which is probably schooling). I want to give my children things I didn't have. I'm glad I can provide that. I honestly don't really care what you think about this, just can't stand the accusations of lying.

55k is a silly number tho. I spend about that on just healthcare and housing. I can't do anything about those expenses. (And then there's food, clothing, cars, etc etc)

In an effort to keep this from spinning out any further, you're conflating lifestyle inflation with "need". As you say, you have chosen to allow your lifestyle to inflate the point where it costs you 'x' dollars to sustain it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Folks are just telling you that living on less is possible for those who choose to do so, and you're responding that less than that is "unlivable".

So I'll revise my earlier rewrite of the initial comment: "I'm too poor to do an ethical job if I also want to be able to continue the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed." But that's still not the same as "I'm too poor to do an ethical job." Lying to yourself is to suggest that those two statements are identical.

[Anonymous User]

This is such a dumb tangent argument.

1. It is in fact very easy to spend a biglaw associate salary on a middle class lifestyle if you live in a high cost of living and/or are supporting other people. Healthcare, taxes, debt, mortgage, housing upkeep, minivan, daycare and schools, food, etc. Some people have parents they support. This is without fancy cars, restaurants, expensive vacations. Maybe it looks different for seniors making 500k or partners making millions. Or for unattached juniors. But people aren't lying about needing 250-300 to live a normal lifestyle.

that's a "middle class" lifestyle with a list of perks and benefits that many middle class families only dream of. If that's just "decent" to you then I think you lack perspective.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not asking for sympathy, and I never said I have problems. Just stating facts about how much a decent but not extravagant lifestyle costs. Sure, there are choices we made that contribute to the budget (biggest of which is probably schooling). I want to give my children things I didn't have. I'm glad I can provide that. I honestly don't really care what you think about this, just can't stand the accusations of lying.

So you are lying, given that you now admit that your lifestyle is completely voluntary.

The families of 50 million U.S. students manage to get by with public schooling. On top of that you have homeschooled kids.

Your sense of "decent" is completely unhinged from the reality of America, let alone countries with much worse average QOL. You can call anything below your desired standard of living "inhumane" or "indecent" or whatever, but you are still full of shit, i.e., lying.

55k is a silly number tho. I spend about that on just healthcare and housing. I can't do anything about those expenses. (And then there's food, clothing, cars, etc etc)

Then you are bad with money lol. You can easily feed a family of four for less than $500/month in NYC and do not even need a car there at all.

People can have whatever standard of life they want. They should not falsely claim that financial circumstances/survival compel them to live at such standards, though, if those standards are clearly above subsistence level. And they certainly should not use those false statements to justify working for companies they think are unethical without straight-up admitting they are hypocrites.

[Anonymous User]

This is such a dumb tangent argument.

1. It is in fact very easy to spend a biglaw associate salary on a middle class lifestyle if you live in a high cost of living and/or are supporting other people. Healthcare, taxes, debt, mortgage, housing upkeep, minivan, daycare and schools, food, etc. Some people have parents they support. This is without fancy cars, restaurants, expensive vacations. Maybe it looks different for seniors making 500k or partners making millions. Or for unattached juniors. But people aren't lying about needing 250-300 to live a normal lifestyle.

that's a "middle class" lifestyle with a list of perks and benefits that many middle class families only dream of. If that's just "decent" to you then I think you lack perspective.

What perspective would that be? I'm just telling you how much life costs.

This is such a dumb tangent argument.

1. It is in fact very easy to spend a biglaw associate salary on a middle class lifestyle if you live in a high cost of living and/or are supporting other people. Healthcare, taxes, debt, mortgage, housing upkeep, minivan, daycare and schools, food, etc. Some people have parents they support. This is without fancy cars, restaurants, expensive vacations. Maybe it looks different for seniors making 500k or partners making millions. Or for unattached juniors. But people aren't lying about needing 250-300 to live a normal lifestyle.

2. The choice isn't between making 200+ and making 150 or whatever. Outside of biglaw the salaries really are not livable by any metric. And indeed many associates leave biglaw as soon as they have other options they can live off.

You don't need $250K to live a normal lifestyle. Source: someone who grew up in a family of 5 with a total family income of about $55K. Spend less money if you are having problems.

$250K is in the top 5% of incomes. The world's smallest violin is playing for people who can't get by with that income.

I'm not asking for sympathy, and I never said I have problems. Just stating facts about how much a decent but not extravagant lifestyle costs. Sure, there are choices we made that contribute to the budget (biggest of which is probably schooling). I want to give my children things I didn't have. I'm glad I can provide that. I honestly don't really care what you think about this, just can't stand the accusations of lying.

55k is a silly number tho. I spend about that on just healthcare and housing. I can't do anything about those expenses. (And then there's food, clothing, cars, etc etc)

In an effort to keep this from spinning out any further, you're conflating lifestyle inflation with "need". As you say, you have chosen to allow your lifestyle to inflate the point where it costs you 'x' dollars to sustain it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Folks are just telling you that living on less is possible for those who choose to do so, and you're responding that less than that is "unlivable".

So I'll revise my earlier rewrite of the initial comment: "I'm too poor to do an ethical job if I also want to be able to continue the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed." But that's still not the same as "I'm too poor to do an ethical job." Lying to yourself is to suggest that those two statements are identical.

I'm not that person, my job is ethical. But even if 250 isn't necessary, you still need more than 5 figures. And with bimodal salary distribution, that's hard to find without biglaw.

Again, by lifestyle here (even without my personal choices) we're not talking about expensive things. We're taking about base model used minivans and a simple house in the suburbs and braces and food and saving up for college and retirement. Stuff costs money.

[clarion]

I'm not that person, my job is ethical. But even if 250 isn't necessary, you still need more than 5 figures. And with bimodal salary distribution, that's hard to find without biglaw.

Again, by lifestyle here (even without my personal choices) we're not talking about expensive things. We're taking about base model used minivans and a simple house in the suburbs and braces and food and saving up for college and retirement. Stuff costs money.

Okay, so you jumped into a convo mid-stream and confounded the specific points being made. That's fine/forgivable of course; but, I really have been responding to the idea of "I need to make more money and can only do so by working less-ethical jobs." The separate conversation as to whether the hedonic treadmill is real isn't that interesting to me. We all should know it is--and all you have to do is look to the biglaw partner bringing home seven figures who struggles to max out his 401(k) every year to see it.

Edit: Also, there are plenty of legal jobs in the major cities that pay six figures. Maybe not right out of law school, but most people don't graduate from law school and immediately have an entirely family to support on one salary.

[MountainMama]

Depends on your interests, but academia/DOJ Honors/meaningful public interest work all are more intellectual and interesting than biglaw.

Sure, but how many of these jobs are actually available? How many require students to have laid some foundation before starting law school? How many of these positions are captured by someone who won't retire for another thirty years?

I think students would absolutely pursue these jobs if schools/government/nonprofits scaled like BigLaw. But those types of organizations don't bring more money in by hiring more employees.

Regarding the moral hand-wringing, my impression is that nonprofits have a harder time soliciting donations than job applications. Would a nonprofit rather receive $5k from a first-year associate or a well-meaning application for a position with fifty other qualified candidates?

[clarion]

Depends on your interests, but academia/DOJ Honors/meaningful public interest work all are more intellectual and interesting than biglaw.

Regarding the moral hand-wringing, my impression is that nonprofits have a harder time soliciting donations than job applications. Would a nonprofit rather receive $5k from a first-year associate or a well-meaning application for a position with fifty other qualified candidates?

Yeah this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

Look, to be clear, I started my career in the fed gov but have since moved to the private sector to make more money. I'm also not in a particularly ethically-ambiguous area of the law. However, I don't tell myself that I came to the private sector because I believe I can do more good here than I could have done in government. People who make less than $215k a year at 25 also manage to donate money to charity btw.

Edit: Deleted some color language that isn't necessary to the point I'm trying to make.

[Saami]

Depends on your interests, but academia/DOJ Honors/meaningful public interest work all are more intellectual and interesting than biglaw.

Regarding the moral hand-wringing, my impression is that nonprofits have a harder time soliciting donations than job applications. Would a nonprofit rather receive $5k from a first-year associate or a well-meaning application for a position with fifty other qualified candidates?

Yeah this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. If you believe that you are taking any sort of high-ground by selling your time/life to corporate America as long as you're also donating $5k to a nonprofit, you are deluding yourself.

Look, to be clear, I started my career in the fed gov but have since moved to the private sector to make more money. I'm also not in a particularly ethically-ambiguous area of the law. However, I don't tell myself that I came to the private sector because I believe I can do more good here than I could have done in government. People who make less than $215k a year at 25 also manage to donate money to charity btw.

One of the most laughable copes I've seen on this topic was a few years ago on Reddit, where one associate claimed that the amount of taxes he pays ultimately accomplishes more good for society than any public-interest attorney does. I don't understand why people can't just admit "I'm doing this to be financially well-off."

[Anonymous User]

My perspective is that I'm too poor to do an ethical job. With no inherited wealth and no trust fund, I can't afford to work at the Anti Defamation League or write self-righteous thinkpieces for The Atlantic or NYT. Doing biglaw is how I survive. I don't even try to rationalize that the work is ethical.

It's cute when I see rich kids go do Doctors without Borders, or start a social impact focused VC fund, but that stuff is a luxury.

I'm supporting myself, my wife, and my son all on my $77k public interest salary (in the NYC area, mind you). I grew up in a household whose income often dipped below the federal poverty level. While I don't pass judgment on honest biglaw associates who just admit that they want to make a lot of money, I despise associates like you who act like you need to earn $200k+ to get by. Sure, you may not be able to live large off a sub-six-figure salary, but you can 100% live comfortably.

If you despise me, then how do you feel about a third-world genocidal dictator's kid who gets drunk in Vegas, blows a million bucks in one night at the tables, beats up a girl in his hotel suite, and has his security pay her off to stay quiet? How do you feel about Putin? Is there any sense of proportion involved in how you feel about other humans?

People have different lifestyles. For me, living on $77K would not be enjoyable. Biglaw pays me enough to get by fine but not lavishly, based on my own standards.