What are some examples of lifestyle creep? Forum

[VentureMBA]

Came across the following link on Twitter and thought it was an interesting read, at least some of it was insightful (had a laugh about upper middle class prestige): https://bowtiedbull.substack.com/p/goin ... -of-wealth

Wonder how many of us enter “No Man’s Land” and give up or go into cruise control…either by finding ourselves a cushy in-house position, or pushing hard for a NEP (or token equity) role that will realistically lead to total comp within the $500-700k range. I’ve taken the latter road if I’m lucky, leaving my sweaty V10 role for a more lifestyle friendly V50 with market pay, but none of the eye watering PEP numbers (as a side note, partner pay is generally shrouded in misconceptions except for the true rainmakers).

I’ve accepted the long odds of me running a successful startup on the side, but even as an 8th year attorney I try to keep my spending down and invest the difference. We’re spending approximately $100k a year as a household. I’m a first generation American and my mindset is I’m happy if my child is able to reap all the rewards of my efforts, which is possible with continued diligence and the wonders of compound interest (I know that parenting approach has its own hazards, but that’s another topic altogether.)

It may sound tautological, but only .1% of people are going to make it into the .1%. "No Man's land" is kind of a funny way of describing what most folks would still call rich (~$500k income and $2-5 million net worth in your 30s). It's not yacht in Monaco rich, but you've broken out of the paycheck to paycheck middle class grind and could bug out and go live simply but comfortably in a low cost of living area if you really wanted out of your professional life. If that's not enough wealth/status for you, I'm not sure any amount is going to be enough.

That blogger could hit $20MM net worth, and still be talking about being caught in the "mass affluent no-man's land" because he can't afford the UES townhouse he wants, then the "merely rich trap" at $100MM because he's priced out of the G650 and exclusive penthouses, then the "single digit billionaire grind" because he can't buy household name companies on a whim like Elon Musk, then finally complain about how insecure that status of being the richest man in the world is.

$2-5m net worth on $500k a year? I need to move.

[Anonymous User]

Came across the following link on Twitter and thought it was an interesting read, at least some of it was insightful (had a laugh about upper middle class prestige): https://bowtiedbull.substack.com/p/goin ... -of-wealth

Wonder how many of us enter “No Man’s Land” and give up or go into cruise control…either by finding ourselves a cushy in-house position, or pushing hard for a NEP (or token equity) role that will realistically lead to total comp within the $500-700k range. I’ve taken the latter road if I’m lucky, leaving my sweaty V10 role for a more lifestyle friendly V50 with market pay, but none of the eye watering PEP numbers (as a side note, partner pay is generally shrouded in misconceptions except for the true rainmakers).

I’ve accepted the long odds of me running a successful startup on the side, but even as an 8th year attorney I try to keep my spending down and invest the difference. We’re spending approximately $100k a year as a household. I’m a first generation American and my mindset is I’m happy if my child is able to reap all the rewards of my efforts, which is possible with continued diligence and the wonders of compound interest (I know that parenting approach has its own hazards, but that’s another topic altogether.)

It may sound tautological, but only .1% of people are going to make it into the .1%. "No Man's land" is kind of a funny way of describing what most folks would still call rich (~$500k income and $2-5 million net worth in your 30s). It's not yacht in Monaco rich, but you've broken out of the paycheck to paycheck middle class grind and could bug out and go live simply but comfortably in a low cost of living area if you really wanted out of your professional life. If that's not enough wealth/status for you, I'm not sure any amount is going to be enough.

That blogger could hit $20MM net worth, and still be talking about being caught in the "mass affluent no-man's land" because he can't afford the UES townhouse he wants, then the "merely rich trap" at $100MM because he's priced out of the G650 and exclusive penthouses, then the "single digit billionaire grind" because he can't buy household name companies on a whim like Elon Musk, then finally complain about how insecure that status of being the richest man in the world is.

$2-5m net worth on $500k a year? I need to move.

Each to their own (and I don’t want to take this thread off track), but unless it’s job related, from a wealth building perspective it seems crazy to me to live in (vs. visit) HCOL cities like SF or NYC.

[ughbugchugplug]

Came across the following link on Twitter and thought it was an interesting read, at least some of it was insightful (had a laugh about upper middle class prestige): https://bowtiedbull.substack.com/p/goin ... -of-wealth

Wonder how many of us enter “No Man’s Land” and give up or go into cruise control…either by finding ourselves a cushy in-house position, or pushing hard for a NEP (or token equity) role that will realistically lead to total comp within the $500-700k range. I’ve taken the latter road if I’m lucky, leaving my sweaty V10 role for a more lifestyle friendly V50 with market pay, but none of the eye watering PEP numbers (as a side note, partner pay is generally shrouded in misconceptions except for the true rainmakers).

I’ve accepted the long odds of me running a successful startup on the side, but even as an 8th year attorney I try to keep my spending down and invest the difference. We’re spending approximately $100k a year as a household. I’m a first generation American and my mindset is I’m happy if my child is able to reap all the rewards of my efforts, which is possible with continued diligence and the wonders of compound interest (I know that parenting approach has its own hazards, but that’s another topic altogether.)

It may sound tautological, but only .1% of people are going to make it into the .1%. "No Man's land" is kind of a funny way of describing what most folks would still call rich (~$500k income and $2-5 million net worth in your 30s). It's not yacht in Monaco rich, but you've broken out of the paycheck to paycheck middle class grind and could bug out and go live simply but comfortably in a low cost of living area if you really wanted out of your professional life. If that's not enough wealth/status for you, I'm not sure any amount is going to be enough.

That blogger could hit $20MM net worth, and still be talking about being caught in the "mass affluent no-man's land" because he can't afford the UES townhouse he wants, then the "merely rich trap" at $100MM because he's priced out of the G650 and exclusive penthouses, then the "single digit billionaire grind" because he can't buy household name companies on a whim like Elon Musk, then finally complain about how insecure that status of being the richest man in the world is.

$2-5m net worth on $500k a year? I need to move.

Each to their own (and I don’t want to take this thread off track), but unless it’s job related, from a wealth building perspective it seems crazy to me to live in (vs. visit) HCOL cities like SF or NYC.

For NYC at least, you can commute from cheaper places that are very nice, such as NJ suburbs/JC, maybe stuff in the Connecticut side too.

[nealric]

Came across the following link on Twitter and thought it was an interesting read, at least some of it was insightful (had a laugh about upper middle class prestige): https://bowtiedbull.substack.com/p/goin ... -of-wealth

Wonder how many of us enter “No Man’s Land” and give up or go into cruise control…either by finding ourselves a cushy in-house position, or pushing hard for a NEP (or token equity) role that will realistically lead to total comp within the $500-700k range. I’ve taken the latter road if I’m lucky, leaving my sweaty V10 role for a more lifestyle friendly V50 with market pay, but none of the eye watering PEP numbers (as a side note, partner pay is generally shrouded in misconceptions except for the true rainmakers).

I’ve accepted the long odds of me running a successful startup on the side, but even as an 8th year attorney I try to keep my spending down and invest the difference. We’re spending approximately $100k a year as a household. I’m a first generation American and my mindset is I’m happy if my child is able to reap all the rewards of my efforts, which is possible with continued diligence and the wonders of compound interest (I know that parenting approach has its own hazards, but that’s another topic altogether.)

It may sound tautological, but only .1% of people are going to make it into the .1%. "No Man's land" is kind of a funny way of describing what most folks would still call rich (~$500k income and $2-5 million net worth in your 30s). It's not yacht in Monaco rich, but you've broken out of the paycheck to paycheck middle class grind and could bug out and go live simply but comfortably in a low cost of living area if you really wanted out of your professional life. If that's not enough wealth/status for you, I'm not sure any amount is going to be enough.

That blogger could hit $20MM net worth, and still be talking about being caught in the "mass affluent no-man's land" because he can't afford the UES townhouse he wants, then the "merely rich trap" at $100MM because he's priced out of the G650 and exclusive penthouses, then the "single digit billionaire grind" because he can't buy household name companies on a whim like Elon Musk, then finally complain about how insecure that status of being the richest man in the world is.

$2-5m net worth on $500k a year? I need to move.

Each to their own (and I don’t want to take this thread off track), but unless it’s job related, from a wealth building perspective it seems crazy to me to live in (vs. visit) HCOL cities like SF or NYC.

The catch is that those are the cities where it's easiest to get a job making $500k a year. There are a lot more market-paying biglaw gigs in NYC than Atlanta. But $2-5MM net worth on $500k/yr isn't crazy at all even in HCOL (especially if you aren't paying for childcare during that time). It has helped that those who started investing in the early 2010s benefitted from a strong decade of returns.

[Mountainvalleywater]

People talking about these $5 million net worth figures in your 30s are being so unrealistic.

1) you can't start making $500k a year in big law until at least your like 7th year basically with your bonus, at which point many associates are burned out.

2) there are these things called taxes. $500k in NYC is what, like $275k after taxes if even? Before you get into cost of living.

3) Even assuming you did make $275k net and were able to invest 50% of your income, it would take you 9ish years of that to break $2 million with consistent "10%" market returns each year.

4) most people these days have student loans, often substantial student loans, and it can take years to fully pay them off even at biglaw salaries.

So yes, a hypothetical person who was perpetually single, had no debt, and basically no life so they could invest 80%+ of their salary every year in a once in a generation bull run market could maybe have gotten to $2 million.

For most people that just won't be the case.

The ideal finance situation seems pretty simple: Get an emergency fund > pay off your debt (absent mortgage) > invest the rest while budgeting yourself the things that you need and the reasonable things that make your life happier.

I'd rather go on a nice vacation once a year and have those memories with my SO for life than worry about the extra $15k I could have had compounding in my brokerage account.

Y'all should read Ramit Sethi and the idea of conscious spending.

[nealric]

People talking about these $5 million net worth figures in your 30s are being so unrealistic.

1) you can't start making $500k a year in big law until at least your like 7th year basically with your bonus, at which point many associates are burned out.

2) there are these things called taxes. $500k in NYC is what, like $275k after taxes if even? Before you get into cost of living.

3) Even assuming you did make $275k net and were able to invest 50% of your income, it would take you 9ish years of that to break $2 million with consistent "10%" market returns each year.

4) most people these days have student loans, often substantial student loans, and it can take years to fully pay them off even at biglaw salaries.

So yes, a hypothetical person who was perpetually single, had no debt, and basically no life so they could invest 80%+ of their salary every year in a once in a generation bull run market could maybe have gotten to $2 million.

For most people that just won't be the case.

The ideal finance situation seems pretty simple: Get an emergency fund > pay off your debt (absent mortgage) > invest the rest while budgeting yourself the things that you need and the reasonable things that make your life happier.

I'd rather go on a nice vacation once a year and have those memories with my SO for life than worry about the extra $15k I could have had compounding in my brokerage account.

Y'all should read Ramit Sethi and the idea of conscious spending.

You may be under-estimating the power of compounding and the strong returns of the 2010s. $100k/yr contributed from 2011 to 2021 in VTI (total stock market) with a $10k starting balance results in a final balance of $2.9MM. If you bought a home during that period, it also probably saw strong appreciation, so a lot of your housing consumption wasn't decreasing your net worth. So, say you started a more realistic $50k/yr of investing in 2011 (no starting balance) and bought a $1M house in 2016 that subsequently appreciated to $1.5MM (not at all uncommon in a lot of major cities). That results in a net worth of right around $2MM in 2021. You can play with numbers here:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... sisResults

Granted, that doesn't take into account people with full-load debt, but that still doesn't foreclose hitting $2MM in your 30s in biglaw under that scenario, especially considering you might be a non-equity partner starting year 8. Also, I don't think anybody said $5MM was realistic (though certainly possible in your 30s if you make equity partner). It was the $2-5MM net worth band.

There is a thread from about a year ago (I think there were some posts as recently as about 6 months ago) about net worth progression. There's certainly self-selection for people who have done well, but nothing totally outlandish.

[Anonymous User]

I got to $2 million net worth working in NYC biglaw from 2011-2021, living in cool neighborhoods, not living particularly frugally (lots of dates, lots of travel, lots of eating out). Some (~$200k) crypto paper gains, but not an insane amount. It's not impossible.

[Sackboy]

I got to $2 million net worth working in NYC biglaw from 2011-2021, living in cool neighborhoods, not living particularly frugally (lots of dates, lots of travel, lots of eating out). Some (~$200k) crypto paper gains, but not an insane amount. It's not impossible.

This take is almost as bad as the luxury car take.

You were gifted the longest bull run in U.S. history while in a high earning job. Congratulations. You're part of a very select group of people who got to enjoy that historical moment.

Compare the S&P 500 returns for 2001-2011 with the S&P 500 returns for 2011-2021, and you'll see what I mean. From 2001 to 2011, the S&P 500 had a 1.65% annual rate of return. From 2011 to 2021, the S&P 500 had a 14.41% annual rate of return. If in 2011, you started with $520k in an S&P 500 index fund, at a 14.41% average rate of return, you'd end up with $2 million a decade later without investing a single cent during that decade. In comparison, you'd needed to have started with $1.7 million in 2001 end up with $2 million a decade later (again, without investing a single cent during that decade).

For current associates starting out, at this point in time, it's more likely that their next decade investing in the S&P 500 looks more like 2001-2011 than 2011-2021.

[Anonymous User]

I got to $2 million net worth working in NYC biglaw from 2011-2021, living in cool neighborhoods, not living particularly frugally (lots of dates, lots of travel, lots of eating out). Some (~$200k) crypto paper gains, but not an insane amount. It's not impossible.

Yeah but what’s your net worth now?

[ughbugchugplug]

I got to $2 million net worth working in NYC biglaw from 2011-2021, living in cool neighborhoods, not living particularly frugally (lots of dates, lots of travel, lots of eating out). Some (~$200k) crypto paper gains, but not an insane amount. It's not impossible.

This take is almost as bad as the luxury car take.

You were gifted the longest bull run in U.S. history while in a high earning job. Congratulations. You're part of a very select group of people who got to enjoy that historical moment.

Compare the S&P 500 returns for 2001-2011 with the S&P 500 returns for 2011-2021, and you'll see what I mean. From 2001 to 2011, the S&P 500 had a 1.65% annual rate of return. From 2011 to 2021, the S&P 500 had a 14.41% annual rate of return. If in 2011, you started with $520k in an S&P 500 index fund, at a 14.41% average rate of return, you'd end up with $2 million a decade later without investing a single cent during that decade. In comparison, you'd needed to have started with $1.7 million in 2001 end up with $2 million a decade later (again, without investing a single cent during that decade).

For current associates starting out, at this point in time, it's more likely that their next decade investing in the S&P 500 looks more like 2001-2011 than 2011-2021.

Compare the success of a two bond-oriented strategies over the same period (or restrict the date bound to 2002) and the earlier decade looks much better. We just had a great decade for stocks but there’s always been ways to make return for reasonably savvy investors.

[Anonymous User]

Came across the following link on Twitter and thought it was an interesting read, at least some of it was insightful (had a laugh about upper middle class prestige): https://bowtiedbull.substack.com/p/goin ... -of-wealth

Wonder how many of us enter “No Man’s Land” and give up or go into cruise control…either by finding ourselves a cushy in-house position, or pushing hard for a NEP (or token equity) role that will realistically lead to total comp within the $500-700k range. I’ve taken the latter road if I’m lucky, leaving my sweaty V10 role for a more lifestyle friendly V50 with market pay, but none of the eye watering PEP numbers (as a side note, partner pay is generally shrouded in misconceptions except for the true rainmakers).

I’ve accepted the long odds of me running a successful startup on the side, but even as an 8th year attorney I try to keep my spending down and invest the difference. We’re spending approximately $100k a year as a household. I’m a first generation American and my mindset is I’m happy if my child is able to reap all the rewards of my efforts, which is possible with continued diligence and the wonders of compound interest (I know that parenting approach has its own hazards, but that’s another topic altogether.)

It may sound tautological, but only .1% of people are going to make it into the .1%. "No Man's land" is kind of a funny way of describing what most folks would still call rich (~$500k income and $2-5 million net worth in your 30s). It's not yacht in Monaco rich, but you've broken out of the paycheck to paycheck middle class grind and could bug out and go live simply but comfortably in a low cost of living area if you really wanted out of your professional life. If that's not enough wealth/status for you, I'm not sure any amount is going to be enough.

That blogger could hit $20MM net worth, and still be talking about being caught in the "mass affluent no-man's land" because he can't afford the UES townhouse he wants, then the "merely rich trap" at $100MM because he's priced out of the G650 and exclusive penthouses, then the "single digit billionaire grind" because he can't buy household name companies on a whim like Elon Musk, then finally complain about how insecure that status of being the richest man in the world is.

That's definitely a thing. I know a biglaw junior who's worth around $25MM and is mostly spending his time using his job to study industries to see where he can start a company to at least 10x that number because he wants a yacht. The grind never stops, the goal just changes.

[Anonymous User]

I got to $2 million net worth working in NYC biglaw from 2011-2021, living in cool neighborhoods, not living particularly frugally (lots of dates, lots of travel, lots of eating out). Some (~$200k) crypto paper gains, but not an insane amount. It's not impossible.

This take is almost as bad as the luxury car take.

You were gifted the longest bull run in U.S. history while in a high earning job. Congratulations. You're part of a very select group of people who got to enjoy that historical moment.

Compare the S&P 500 returns for 2001-2011 with the S&P 500 returns for 2011-2021, and you'll see what I mean. From 2001 to 2011, the S&P 500 had a 1.65% annual rate of return. From 2011 to 2021, the S&P 500 had a 14.41% annual rate of return. If in 2011, you started with $520k in an S&P 500 index fund, at a 14.41% average rate of return, you'd end up with $2 million a decade later without investing a single cent during that decade. In comparison, you'd needed to have started with $1.7 million in 2001 end up with $2 million a decade later (again, without investing a single cent during that decade).

For current associates starting out, at this point in time, it's more likely that their next decade investing in the S&P 500 looks more like 2001-2011 than 2011-2021.

I didn't have a "take". I just stated a series of facts.

I got to $2 million net worth working in NYC biglaw from 2011-2021, living in cool neighborhoods, not living particularly frugally (lots of dates, lots of travel, lots of eating out). Some (~$200k) crypto paper gains, but not an insane amount. It's not impossible.

Yeah but what’s your net worth now?

~$1.6 mil, but I left biglaw in early 2021 and took a huge paycut.

[Sackboy]

I didn't have a "take". I just stated a series of facts.

You did have a (bad) take, and you should own it instead of hiding behind "I just stated a series of facts." Your take was as follows:

"I was in biglaw for a decade. In biglaw, I lived in nice places, took nice vacations, and did nice things, and I saved $2 million. You can do the same and save $2 million. It's a realistic possibility."

You omitted the fact that the easiest, most tried and true, and most recommended investment strategy (i.e., investing in an S&P 500 index fund) was returning 14.41% annually during the longest bull run in U.S. history. If you had gotten the previous decade's returns on your portfolio, you would have had a net worth of $612k.

Compare the success of a two bond-oriented strategies over the same period (or restrict the date bound to 2002) and the earlier decade looks much better. We just had a great decade for stocks but there’s always been ways to make return for reasonably savvy investors.

Mid-20 to late-30 year olds aren't fucking around with bonds when the traditional wisdom is to be 100% equities or close to in those years. You can walk around and say that there are decades of contrast with any investment. The key point here is that the investment that is the most widely recommended, safest, and most likely for people to be invested into had dramatically different returns. I'm also not sure you can classify 14.41% annually for a decade as a reasonable return unless you're Warren Buffett...

[TigerIsBack]

The "take" police are back ITT

[ughbugchugplug]

I didn't have a "take". I just stated a series of facts.

You did have a (bad) take, and you should own it instead of hiding behind "I just stated a series of facts." Your take was as follows:

"I was in biglaw for a decade. In biglaw, I lived in nice places, took nice vacations, and did nice things, and I saved $2 million. You can do the same and save $2 million. It's a realistic possibility."

You omitted the fact that the easiest, most tried and true, and most recommended investment strategy (i.e., investing in an S&P 500 index fund) was returning 14.41% annually during the longest bull run in U.S. history. If you had gotten the previous decade's returns on your portfolio, you would have had a net worth of $612k.

Compare the success of a two bond-oriented strategies over the same period (or restrict the date bound to 2002) and the earlier decade looks much better. We just had a great decade for stocks but there’s always been ways to make return for reasonably savvy investors.

Mid-20 to late-30 year olds aren't fucking around with bonds when the traditional wisdom is to be 100% equities or close to in those years. You can walk around and say that there are decades of contrast with any investment. The key point here is that the investment that is the most widely recommended, safest, and most likely for people to be invested into had dramatically different returns. I'm also not sure you can classify 14.41% annually for a decade as a reasonable return unless you're Warren Buffett...

I think your sense of what is the most widely recommended investment is colored by your age. Read Benjamin graham (the Bible for investing and prob what people were reading preinternet) and he’s talking about a 60-40 split. In the 80s bonds returned 15-18% and they out performed stocks 2001-2011. Its only recently that people have adopted TINA (there is no alternative) to stocks, and it’s due to market conditions.

[12YrsAnAssociate]

I got to $2 million net worth working in NYC biglaw from 2011-2021, living in cool neighborhoods, not living particularly frugally (lots of dates, lots of travel, lots of eating out). Some (~$200k) crypto paper gains, but not an insane amount. It's not impossible.

Man. During the same stretch and likely the same pay (minus 2 years clerking), I only got to 1.4. But I have a family so I'm pretty conservative with investments and I spend lots of money on family stuff.

[nealric]

I got to $2 million net worth working in NYC biglaw from 2011-2021, living in cool neighborhoods, not living particularly frugally (lots of dates, lots of travel, lots of eating out). Some (~$200k) crypto paper gains, but not an insane amount. It's not impossible.

This take is almost as bad as the luxury car take.

You were gifted the longest bull run in U.S. history while in a high earning job. Congratulations. You're part of a very select group of people who got to enjoy that historical moment.

Compare the S&P 500 returns for 2001-2011 with the S&P 500 returns for 2011-2021, and you'll see what I mean. From 2001 to 2011, the S&P 500 had a 1.65% annual rate of return. From 2011 to 2021, the S&P 500 had a 14.41% annual rate of return. If in 2011, you started with $520k in an S&P 500 index fund, at a 14.41% average rate of return, you'd end up with $2 million a decade later without investing a single cent during that decade. In comparison, you'd needed to have started with $1.7 million in 2001 end up with $2 million a decade later (again, without investing a single cent during that decade).

For current associates starting out, at this point in time, it's more likely that their next decade investing in the S&P 500 looks more like 2001-2011 than 2011-2021.

Nobody thought 2011 was going to be so hot as a starting point back in 2011. These things just aren't meaningfully predicable. It's highly likely you will have a strong bull run at some point in your career, but when that comes is anybody's guess.

[Sackboy]

Nobody thought 2011 was going to be so hot as a starting point back in 2011. These things just aren't meaningfully predicable. It's highly likely you will have a strong bull run at some point in your career, but when that comes is anybody's guess.

These things aren't meaningfully predictable. That's kind of my point. This is why an associate investing $X/mo. in the S&P 500 in one decade should not expect the same (or even similar) results as another associate investing $X/mo. in the S&P 500 in a different decade. Going out and touting that you accumulated $2M doing so (presumably, or some other similar equity investing) over a decade (again, a decade that was the longest bull run in U.S. history) and that "you can too" is not remotely realistic or intellectually honest. Yes, we all will probably have one of these decades during our careers, but probably very few of us will have it during our very high earning associate years.

Don't know why my pushback is remotely controversial.

Also, to the other poster, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the average biglaw investor doesn't know who Benjamin Graham is. Typical investing advice for the past 20 years has been to buy a wide swath of the market (i.e., S&P 500/Russell 1000 index fund).

[Sackboy]

The "take" police are back ITT

Solution is to stop having bad takes. Then I can just eat my donuts and chill.

Spending tens of thousands more on a luxury car to avoid $100 of ubers a year or touting your net worth without acknowledging that you were gifted the longest bull market in U.S. history is going to get you beat by the take police.

[ughbugchugplug]

Nobody thought 2011 was going to be so hot as a starting point back in 2011. These things just aren't meaningfully predicable. It's highly likely you will have a strong bull run at some point in your career, but when that comes is anybody's guess.

These things aren't meaningfully predictable. That's kind of my point. This is why an associate investing $X/mo. in the S&P 500 in one decade should not expect the same (or even similar) results as another associate investing $X/mo. in the S&P 500 in a different decade. Going out and touting that you accumulated $2M doing so (presumably, or some other similar equity investing) over a decade (again, a decade that was the longest bull run in U.S. history) and that "you can too" is not remotely realistic or intellectually honest. Yes, we all will probably have one of these decades during our careers, but probably very few of us will have it during our very high earning associate years.

Don't know why my pushback is remotely controversial.

Also, to the other poster, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the average biglaw investor doesn't know who Benjamin Graham is. Typical investing advice for the past 20 years has been to buy a wide swath of the market (i.e., S&P 500/Russell 1000 index fund).

The point isn’t that they know who he is, it’s that TINA is something from the last 10 years. I’m not sure who you’ve been getting investment advice from, but you are not correct that it’s been ‘stocks and stocks alone’ the whole time.

[Necho2]

Lots of great examples of lifestyle creep in and around NYC in this article.

https://www.thecut.com/2023/02/the-flei ... ffect.html

[Moneytrees]

Lots of great examples of lifestyle creep in and around NYC in this article.

https://www.thecut.com/2023/02/the-flei ... ffect.html

For as much as I love living in NYC, it is an incredibly difficult place to build real wealth, even with a good Biglaw gig.

[Dr Tobias Funke]

Lots of great examples of lifestyle creep in and around NYC in this article.

https://www.thecut.com/2023/02/the-flei ... ffect.html

For as much as I love living in NYC, it is an incredibly difficult place to build real wealth, even with a good Biglaw gig.

Odds are you're not going to "build real wealth" anywhere with a W2 job.