(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
MrKappus wrote:Cleveland's not that bad at all. It's liveable, and you can live every well for $145k. Very well. I've never lived in Sac, but all the Cleveland hate's unwarranted.
Cleveland at 145 >>>>>> NY at 160
I love CA, but IMO by FAR the best balance of income/low COL/high QOL is 160K for biglaw in Houston, Dallas or Austin.
For me, low COL generally correlates with low QOL. There's a reason certain cities are more expensive--they're better. It's not true across the board, and I'm not one of those people who hates on everyplace but NY or SF or LA (or pick your city). But, unlike many folks around here, I think that the COL in those big cities buys you something.
LA has the worst CoL/QoL ratio in the country, perhaps the world. SF/SV are next. Well, basically all of California has a shitty CoL/QoL ratio. Besides weather, I can't think of anything that's good about that failed, bankrupt excuse for a state. I'd rather live in London.
In my opinion New York is the only absurdly expensive city in the United States that can justify its high cost of living.
JPU wrote:
Eh, for me QOL is about being able to buy a house, a nice car, and most importantly: eventually retire. I don't understand how anyone who isn't a ceo/lotto winner can own a (big/nice) home in a nice area of LA/SF, even on biglaw partner money. I can build a castle in Cleveland for 1/8 of the price of a house2-bedroom condo in the OC or equivalent bay area location.
MrKappus wrote:Cleveland's not that bad at all. It's liveable, and you can live every well for $145k. Very well. I've never lived in Sac, but all the Cleveland hate's unwarranted.
Cleveland at 145 >>>>>> NY at 160
I love CA, but IMO by FAR the best balance of income/low COL/high QOL is 160K for biglaw in Houston, Dallas or Austin.
For me, low COL generally correlates with low QOL. There's a reason certain cities are more expensive--they're better. It's not true across the board, and I'm not one of those people who hates on everyplace but NY or SF or LA (or pick your city). But, unlike many folks around here, I think that the COL in those big cities buys you something.
Oh I agree with you. You're talking to the guy who picked SF. I think even with a firm job there I'll have the buying power of a high school history teacher in Cleveland, but at least I'll live in the coolest city in the U.S. That said, I don't dispute that you get the most bang for your biglaw buck in Texas, and Austin is an awesome city.
SBL wrote:
Oh I agree with you. You're talking to the guy who picked SF. I think even with a firm job there I'll have the buying power of a high school history teacher in Cleveland, but at least I'll live in the coolest city in the U.S. That said, I don't dispute that you get the most bang for your biglaw buck in Texas, and Austin is an awesome city.
I don't intend any snark but what is so cool about SF/bay area? In my time in the bay area so far I haven't found it particularly entertaining or fun. To me it just seems expensive, dirty, and full of homeless people.
SBL wrote:
Oh I agree with you. You're talking to the guy who picked SF. I think even with a firm job there I'll have the buying power of a high school history teacher in Cleveland, but at least I'll live in the coolest city in the U.S. That said, I don't dispute that you get the most bang for your biglaw buck in Texas, and Austin is an awesome city.
I don't intend any snark but what is so cool about SF/bay area? In my time in the bay area so far I haven't found it particularly entertaining or fun. To me it just seems expensive, dirty, and full of homeless people.
Unlike a lot of jurisdictions, SF doesn't bus their homeless people to other cities against their will (SD) or cordon them off into one small section of Downtown (LA). One of the things that makes SF so great to me is that the sorts of people who support policies like that accordingly choose not to live here.
SBL wrote:
Oh I agree with you. You're talking to the guy who picked SF. I think even with a firm job there I'll have the buying power of a high school history teacher in Cleveland, but at least I'll live in the coolest city in the U.S. That said, I don't dispute that you get the most bang for your biglaw buck in Texas, and Austin is an awesome city.
I don't intend any snark but what is so cool about SF/bay area? In my time in the bay area so far I haven't found it particularly entertaining or fun. To me it just seems expensive, dirty, and full of homeless people.
Unlike a lot of jurisdictions, SF doesn't bus their homeless people to other cities against their will (SD) or cordon them off into one small section of Downtown (LA). One of the things that makes SF so great to me is that the sorts of people who support policies like that accordingly choose not to live here.
Nothing better than a bunch of bums hanging around your doorstep (like I have in Chi) muttering obscenities and peeing on your building EVERYDAY.
I really struggle to formulate an opinion on the homeless. On one hand, I really detest laziness and entitlements. On the other, many people have mental problems, and I was basically born without a care in the world, so it's hard for me to judge a class of people categorically. I'd rather not give away the money I earn for public assistance programs, but I'd also rather not live in a world that ignores those who are struggling.
I used to give money to beggars because I have so much in this world, and I feel like a real Scrooge when I won't give someone the change in my pocket. But someone on this board pointed out that giving addicts money might allow them to continue living destructive lifestyles with no accountability. I just don't know.
I live in Austin, and the grunge culture really doesn't bother me. The bums are respectful here. They'll leave you alone if you're stern.
Last edited by JazzOne on Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JazzOne wrote:I really struggle to formulate an opinion on the homeless. On one hand, I really detest laziness and entitlements. On the other, many people have mental problems, and I was basically born without a care in the world, so it's hard for me to judge a class of people categorically. I'd rather not give away the money I earn for public assistance programs, but I'd also rather not live in a world that ignores those who are struggling.
I used to give money to beggars because I have so much in this world, and I feel like a real Scrooge when I won't give someone the change in my pocket. But someone on this board pointed out that giving addicts money might allow them to continue living destructive lifestyles with no accountability. I just don't know.
JazzOne wrote:I really struggle to formulate an opinion on the homeless. On one hand, I really detest laziness and entitlements. On the other, many people have mental problems, and I was basically born without a care in the world, so it's hard for me to judge a class of people categorically. I'd rather not give away the money I earn for public assistance programs, but I'd also rather not live in a world that ignores those who are struggling.
I used to give money to beggars because I have so much in this world, and I feel like a real Scrooge when I won't give someone the change in my pocket. But someone on this board pointed out that giving addicts money might allow them to continue living destructive lifestyles with no accountability. I just don't know.
Uh, ok. Thx for sharing.
lol
I just can't bring myself to study for my Professional Responsibility final next week.
JazzOne wrote:I really struggle to formulate an opinion on the homeless. On one hand, I really detest laziness and entitlements. On the other, many people have mental problems, and I was basically born without a care in the world, so it's hard for me to judge a class of people categorically. I'd rather not give away the money I earn for public assistance programs, but I'd also rather not live in a world that ignores those who are struggling.
I used to give money to beggars because I have so much in this world, and I feel like a real Scrooge when I won't give someone the change in my pocket. But someone on this board pointed out that giving addicts money might allow them to continue living destructive lifestyles with no accountability. I just don't know.
Uh, ok. Thx for sharing.
lol
I just can't bring myself to study for my Professional Responsibility final next week.
I just can't bring myself to do shit ever since 2L started. God dammit. I was so motivated last year.
MrKappus wrote:Cleveland's not that bad at all. It's liveable, and you can live every well for $145k. Very well. I've never lived in Sac, but all the Cleveland hate's unwarranted.
Cleveland at 145 >>>>>> NY at 160
I love CA, but IMO by FAR the best balance of income/low COL/high QOL is 160K for biglaw in Houston, Dallas or Austin.
clintonius wrote:Fails the "high QOL" arm of the test.
It's more of a sliding scale type of test. It gets a 10 with respect to COL. And with all of that disposable income to put up your nose, how could QOL be that terrible?
Ya the high COL = high QOL is a bit odd to me. How can you afford those high QOL attractions without the necessary high cash flow (ie. bigger than biglaw money). In a secondary market (like cleveland or wilmington) you can make it rain pacman style on biglaw money. I'll take rainmaking over bargain hunting all day.
Aqualibrium wrote:So can we go ahead and move this thread to the lounge?
People are still generally talking about topical things (e.g. legal employment, in some sense, for the most part). I tend to punt something to the Lounge only when a thread gets epically derailed. Also, don't report people for going off topic in a thread anymore. It waste's a mod's time to close the report. Threads are like conversations: Sometimes the topic changes, and that's OK.
Aqualibrium wrote:So can we go ahead and move this thread to the lounge?
People are still generally talking about topical things (e.g. legal employment, in some sense, for the most part). I tend to punt something to the Lounge only when a thread gets epically derailed. Also, don't report people for going off topic in a thread anymore. It waste's a mod's time to close the report. Threads are like conversations: Sometimes the topic changes, and that's OK.
Lol I only reported the mods. I was really just being an ass, but I was also a little confused after reading the various warnings about being helpful and on topic in the legal employment forum and then seeing mods be off topic and unhelpful in various threads in the legal employment forum.
Also, people aren't talking about the topic of this thread. The title is negotiating starting salary not col/qol of various cities. I'm sure you have the ability to change the title if you'd like though....
SBL wrote:
Oh I agree with you. You're talking to the guy who picked SF. I think even with a firm job there I'll have the buying power of a high school history teacher in Cleveland, but at least I'll live in the coolest city in the U.S. That said, I don't dispute that you get the most bang for your biglaw buck in Texas, and Austin is an awesome city.
I don't intend any snark but what is so cool about SF/bay area? In my time in the bay area so far I haven't found it particularly entertaining or fun. To me it just seems expensive, dirty, and full of homeless people.
As a big-city type of person, I actually agree with this. If the city would set up some sort of a free poisoned-sandwich distribution network and take care of the homeless, I'd probably move there.
SBL wrote:
Oh I agree with you. You're talking to the guy who picked SF. I think even with a firm job there I'll have the buying power of a high school history teacher in Cleveland, but at least I'll live in the coolest city in the U.S. That said, I don't dispute that you get the most bang for your biglaw buck in Texas, and Austin is an awesome city.
I don't intend any snark but what is so cool about SF/bay area? In my time in the bay area so far I haven't found it particularly entertaining or fun. To me it just seems expensive, dirty, and full of homeless people.
As a big-city type of person, I actually agree with this. If the city would set up some sort of a free poisoned-sandwich distribution network and take care of the homeless, I'd probably move there.
SBL wrote:I love CA, but IMO by FAR the best balance of income/low COL/high QOL is 160K for biglaw in Houston, Dallas or Austin.
This is true, but between the great COL/QOL and the few positions available, securing BigLaw in Austin ranks on the unlikelihood scale somewhere between winning the lottery and getting a unicorn that poops rainbows for your birthday.
+1. Dallas and Houston are doing pretty well now, though. Pretty decent cities to live in. I'd definitely rather have a house in dallas w/ $160K than an apartment in NY w/ the same. I guess some people don't need personal space, though.
Still crossing my fingers for that rainbow-pooping unicorn...
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
High COL, high QOL = SF/Bay/LA
Slightly high COL, extremely high QOL = San Diego, Portland, Seattle
Average COL, high QOL = Denver, Phoenix, Salt Lake, Sacramento
Low COL, decent QOL = Texas
High COL, decent QOL = The Northeast
Low COL, low QOL = The South, The Midwest
RVP11 wrote:High COL, high QOL = SF/Bay/LA
Slightly high COL, extremely high QOL = San Diego, Portland, Seattle
Average COL, high QOL = Denver, Phoenix, Salt Lake, Sacramento
Low COL, decent QOL = Texas
High COL, decent QOL = The Northeast
Low COL, low QOL = The South, The Midwest
/thread
Pretty accurate, though I dispute that the QOL in SLC is high for anyone who isn't Mormon. It would just be too weird to live in the middle of all that. Also, the COL in San Diego is every bit as high as that of LA, if not a little more.
RVP11 wrote:High COL, high QOL = SF/Bay/LA
Slightly high COL, extremely high QOL = San Diego, Portland, Seattle
Average COL, high QOL = Denver, Phoenix, Salt Lake, Sacramento
Low COL, decent QOL = Texas
High COL, decent QOL = The Northeast
Low COL, low QOL = The South, The Midwest
/thread
Pretty accurate, though I dispute that the QOL in SLC is high for anyone who isn't Mormon. It would just be too weird to live in the middle of all that. Also, the COL in San Diego is every bit as high as that of LA, if not a little more.
I've always felt SD was way cheaper, at least for housing.
