Best balance of COL and QOL in your opinion Forum

[tlslsnlsp]

The new york biglaw after taxes thread got me thinking. it seems like the consensus over there is that after taxes, rent, utilities, 30k in loans, you have anywhere from 35-55 grand left over. of course a bunch of other people chimed in with "that's why [insert non nyc city name] biglaw is a better deal". let's talk about those non-nyc cities. What city, in your opinion, has the best cost of living and quality of life balance for a biglaw lawyer? Why? How much $$ will you have left over after all the taxes, rent, utilities, loans, etc.?

[BruceWayne]

The Texas markets, Atlanta, and Chicago.


Texas has no state income tax and they have firms that pay the NYC scale. After taxes 160K in Texas is $9,000 a month.
Note this 435,000 house in Dallas--note what type of home that get SF or the NE.

http://www.century21.com/search/idx/ind ... qft=&pg=32

[A&O]

"Quality of Life" doesn't mean "where you get the most bang for your buck." That's "Cost of Living."

Texas and Atlanta might have lower costs of living, but you'd have to live in Texas or Atlanta. Gross.

Chicago has a legitimate argument.

And the Texas salary scales are not the same. Though they usually start at $160k, the raise-structure is more condensed than NYC. Atlanta, I believe, now typically starts at $160k.

[Jessep]

Totally depends on the person. For me, I could never live in Texas because of the heat.

If you are looking for a cheaper version of NYC but a fun city try DC, San Francisco, and Boston. All have a large population of young professions, good culture and active nightlife without the insane prices of New York City.

[bdubs]

No question that Chicago has the best COL/QOL balance for me. It's too bad that the market is in the tank and the field I am interested in has no presence there.

If you are looking for a cheaper version of NYC but a fun city try DC, San Francisco, and Boston. All have a large population of young professions, good culture and active nightlife without the insane prices of New York City.

DC and San Francsico both have very high COL. You would get a middling two bedroom condo in DC for the price of that great house in TX posted above.

[09042014]

Any major city is pretty much fungible for people with middle class tastes. Then things like general culture of cities, and whether are more important.

Though it's not that important. You can pretty much only aim for NYC, DC, and the two markets that your school is in and where you are from.

Good luck bidding on Dallas, Chicago, or Seattle if you go to school in Virgina and grew up in NY.

[Renzo]

The new york biglaw after taxes thread got me thinking. it seems like the consensus over there is that after taxes, rent, utilities, 30k in loans, you have anywhere from 35-55 grand left over. of course a bunch of other people chimed in with "that's why [insert non nyc city name] biglaw is a better deal". let's talk about those non-nyc cities. What city, in your opinion, has the best cost of living and quality of life balance for a biglaw lawyer? Why? How much $$ will you have left over after all the taxes, rent, utilities, loans, etc.?

There is a basic, fundamental truth that this question ignores. Cities with high costs of living don't arise randomly--they are desirable places to live, and so people bid up costs to live there, making them expensive. Cities with low costs of living aren't as desirable, or else people would move there and drive up costs.

This doesn't mean that NYC or LA or SF is always better for every person's tastes; price (COL in this case) just represents an average, and any one person might much prefer to live in a "less desirable" place. So the only way to answer this question is based on a subjective assessment of what things you value

[bdubs]

There is a basic, fundamental truth that this question ignores. Cities with high costs of living don't arise randomly--they are desirable places to live, and so people bid up costs to live there, making them expensive. Cities with low costs of living aren't as desirable, or else people would move there and drive up costs.

This doesn't mean that NYC or LA or SF is always better for every person's tastes; price (COL in this case) just represents an average, and any one person might much prefer to live in a "less desirable" place. So the only way to answer this question is based on a subjective assessment of what things you value

That is not true. Even if I desired to live in rural Montana, I cannot find a biglaw job there. Most peoples choice of residence is highly constrained by available employment.

[johnnyutah]

There is a federal clerkship here:



/thread.

[BruceWayne]

"Quality of Life" doesn't mean "where you get the most bang for your buck." That's "Cost of Living."

Texas and Atlanta might have lower costs of living, but you'd have to live in Texas or Atlanta. Gross.

Chicago has a legitimate argument.

And the Texas salary scales are not the same. Though they usually start at $160k, the raise-structure is more condensed than NYC. Atlanta, I believe, now typically starts at $160k.

You have a reading comp problem. The title says" in your opinion". And frankly you sound like a 20 year old yuppie if you think living in Atlanta is "gross".

You also seem to be pretty ignorant about what you speak; Texas has several firms on the NYC scale. In addition, Atlanta has pretty few firms on that scale. HTH

There is a basic, fundamental truth that this question ignores. Cities with high costs of living don't arise randomly--they are desirable places to live, and so people bid up costs to live there, making them expensive. Cities with low costs of living aren't as desirable, or else people would move there and drive up costs.

This doesn't mean that NYC or LA or SF is always better for every person's tastes; price (COL in this case) just represents an average, and any one person might much prefer to live in a "less desirable" place. So the only way to answer this question is based on a subjective assessment of what things you value

You're saying this like it's fact--it's not. To help cement how off this is, the cities that you are bashing and saying have low cost of living because they aren't "desirable"--and are "proving" your point by stating that people aren't moving-- there is dead wrong. The NYC metro area has only grown 4 percent in recent years, SF has grown a little less than 5 percent. The cities that you bash have had huge increases in population--much higher than SF and NYC. Dallas and Houston have both grown by nearly 25 percent--that's why Texas is gaining 4 seats in the senate. The Atlanta metro area has grown by a whopping 28 percent in recent years. Georgia's gaining 1 new seat in the senate-NY is losing a seat.

Desirability is not the only reason an area has a high COL; one of the main reasons why NYC, DC, SF etc. have such high COL is because of the high number of jobs that pay large salaries that are located in these areas. It's disingeonous at best to make it seem like the low COL cities are that way simply because they "suck" etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_U ... ical_Areas

[A&O]

You have a reading comp problem. The title says" in your opinion". And frankly you sound like a 20 year old yuppie if you think living in Atlanta is "gross".

What? First you say that this thread is all about our opinions, and then you state something that purports to be an objective fact.

You also seem to be pretty ignorant about what you speak; Texas has several firms on the NYC scale. In addition, Atlanta has pretty few firms on that scale. HTH

Aside from Susman and maybe other boutiques, the big firms in Texas (Baker Botts, V&E, Fulbright, etc.) all start at $160k, but the salary steps are more condensed.

Regarding Atlanta, I'm pretty sure all the big firms (except Paul Hastings) now start at $145k, unless I haven't been reading abovethelaw closely enough or there have been raises that were under the radar (which, to be fair, has happened; for example, Haynes & Boone went from $145k back to $160k not too long ago).

Highly ironic that you're calling me the ignorant one with the reading comprehension problem.

[BruceWayne]

You have a reading comp problem. The title says" in your opinion". And frankly you sound like a 20 year old yuppie if you think living in Atlanta is "gross".

What? First you say that this thread is all about our opinions, and then you state something that purports to be an objective fact.

You also seem to be pretty ignorant about what you speak; Texas has several firms on the NYC scale. In addition, Atlanta has pretty few firms on that scale. HTH

Aside from Susman and maybe other boutiques, the big firms in Texas (Baker Botts, V&E, Fulbright, etc.) all start at $160k, but the salary steps are more condensed.

Regarding Atlanta, I'm pretty sure all the big firms (except Paul Hastings) now start at $145k, unless I haven't been reading abovethelaw closely enough or there have been raises that were under the radar (which, to be fair, has happened; for example, Haynes & Boone went from $145k back to $160k not too long ago).

ironic that you're calling me the ignorant one with the reading comprehension problem.

I can tell that RC really raped you. Whether or not a city has a high QOL is a subjective question. Whether or not a city has firms on a set salary scale is an objective question. In other words there either are firms in Texas with the NYC scale or there aren't. I'm not sure why you cannot fathom this. Susman is actually above the NYC scale, so are Beck Redden, Gibbs and Bruns, and Bickel and Brewer.

Weil Gotshal, Skadden, Dewet Lebeof, Howrey,fish and richardson and Gibson Dunn Texas are on the NYC scale. And just in case you missed it, the fact that Atlanta firms start at 145K and not 160K--which you yourself mentioned--means that you were ignorant about the facts (they are not on the NYC scale like you alluded to). Again you were off--just admit it and move on.

[IAFG]

ATL is objectively awesome. glad we could settle that.

[A&O]

BruceWayne: Has TLS made you incapable of having a conversation with another human being? If so, I suggest you leave this forum and sort out the bigger problems you probably have in your life.

Susman is actually above the NYC scale, so are Beck Redden, Gibbs and Bruns, and Bickel and Brewer.

See what I said here:

Aside from Susman and maybe other boutiques, the big firms in Texas (Baker Botts, V&E, Fulbright, etc.) all start at $160k

Weil Gotshal, Skadden, Dewet Lebeof, Howrey,Fish and Richardson and Gibson Dunn Texas are on the NYC scale

These are all firms with no sizeable presence in Texas. When a law student considers the TX market, they typically consider the big three (V&E, Fulbright, and Baker Botts), along with a handful of others. Moreover, within the TX market, these three firms are considered to be the market firms.

Susman pays way above market in Seattle, but we wouldn't then argue that the market is what Susman says it is.

the fact that Atlanta firms start at 145K and not 160K--which you yourself mentioned--means that you were ignorant about the facts (they are not on the NYC scale like you alluded to).

Actually, I meant to say in my initial post that "Atlanta, I believe, now typically starts at $145k." The above was a typo.

Edit: I think Paul Hastings Atlanta starts at $160k, though.

[Grizz]

You have a reading comp problem. The title says" in your opinion". And frankly you sound like a 20 year old yuppie if you think living in Atlanta is "gross".

All my best bros are 20 yr. old yuppies and love Atlanta.

[Renzo]

You're saying this like it's fact--it's not. To help cement how off this is, the cities that you are bashing and saying have low cost of living because they aren't "desirable"--and are "proving" your point by stating that people aren't moving-- there is dead wrong. The NYC metro area has only grown 4 percent in recent years, SF has grown a little less than 5 percent. The cities that you bash have had huge increases in population--much higher than SF and NYC. Dallas and Houston have both grown by nearly 25 percent--that's why Texas is gaining 4 seats in the senate. The Atlanta metro area has grown by a whopping 28 percent in recent years. Georgia's gaining 1 new seat in the senate-NY is losing a seat.

Desirability is not the only reason an area has a high COL; one of the main reasons why NYC, DC, SF etc. have such high COL is because of the high number of jobs that pay large salaries that are located in these areas. It's disingeonous at best to make it seem like the low COL cities are that way simply because they "suck" etc.

So, what happened to the cost of living in those cities that gained population over the past 20 years. Because that statistic is only relevant if COL went down or stayed flat. Otherwise it's consistent with, if not proof of, my point. Further, comparing growth rates is silly. How in the hell would it even be physically possible for the population of Manhattan to grow by 25%? They'd need some sort of sci-fi double-decker city.

I know that NYC did something terrible to you once, and you'll never be able to forgive it. But I never said other places suck, nor did I imply it. I said that the market is at work in setting COL, and more desirable (on average)=higher cost of living. It might be more desirable for a whole host of reasons: access to culture, weather, safety, public services, and yes, even availability of jobs.

I am making a positive statement, not a normative value judgement. When things (like houses, gas, groceries) that are traded on the open market are more expensive than others, the more expensive are more desired--that's why the price is higher. They might not be better, but they are more desired. Just like NYC is not better than Cody, Wy, but it is more desired.

[A&O]

How in the hell would it even be physically possible for the population of Manhattan to grow by 25%? They'd need some sort of sci-fi double-decker city.

This is one of the bigger flaws in his arguments that I was hoping someone else would point out.

Considering percentages in these cities is futile unless you also consider the absolute numbers. NYC's population is more than twice as large as LA's. Moreover, population in NYC will never grow as quickly (or much larger) simply because of space: There isn't much left. Cities like Houston and Atlanta have much more space. That also creates corollary problems: With more space, there are commute issues, cultural issues, real estate issues, etc.

The most desirable cities to live tend to have the highest costs of living. If they didn't, they wouldn't be the most desirable cities to live in.

(In other words, Renzo is exactly correct)

[Moxie]

Boston, while still expensive, has a lower COL than NY, and most Boston firms have lower billable hours expectations than their NY counterparts. Not saying it's as cheap as Texas/ATL, but still better than NY (especially since many of the big Boston firms pay 160k).

[3ThrowAway99]

If you can stand the cold Minneapolis is a really nice city IMO and still relatively cheap to live in.

I think there may be an argument for the Denver area, but I imagine COL is not exactly low there (though of course compared to NY, D.C., CA I'm fairly sure it is much, much lower). I am particularly partial to the Boulder, CO area, but Boulder itself does have quite a high COL. Also a very high QOL though.

[jdstl]

I'm pretty set on coming back to St. Louis after law school, but I'm someone whose never really understood the allure of living in really big cities. Cities over 1 million (St. Louis = 2.2 million metro area, I think) all have plenty of good restaurants/clubs/etc. How often do people actually go to Broadway or whatever it is you do when you live in NYC?

Of course, if you a fan of big city living, St. Louis and peer cities (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati) would probably qualify as "gross."

If you pop a NYC big law salary (160,000) into a cost of living comparison calculator with St. Louis, it says=$70,000 or so. Market in St. Louis is $110,000, so it seems like a good deal.

I guess that's where the cost of living comes into conflict with the "quality" of living. There's no doubt you're getting more economic surplus in a mid-sized town with decent sized firms, but if you value big city life highly, that surplus may not be worth it.

[BruceWayne]

So, what happened to the cost of living in those cities that gained population over the past 20 years. Because that statistic is only relevant if COL went down or stayed flat. Otherwise it's consistent with, if not proof of, my point. Further, comparing growth rates is silly. How in the hell would it even be physically possible for the population of Manhattan to grow by 25%? They'd need some sort of sci-fi double-decker city.

I know that NYC did something terrible to you once, and you'll never be able to forgive it. But I never said other places suck, nor did I imply it. I said that the market is at work in setting COL, and more desirable (on average)=higher cost of living. It might be more desirable for a whole host of reasons: access to culture, weather, safety, public services, and yes, even availability of jobs.

I am making a positive statement, not a normative value judgement. When things (like houses, gas, groceries) that are traded on the open market are more expensive than others, the more expensive are more desired--that's why the price is higher. They might not be better, but they are more desired. Just like NYC is not better than Cody, Wy, but it is more desired.

That wouldn't be nearly as relevant as you make it out to be because you'd have to take into account inflation.

And frankly you've said on numerous occasions exactly that-- that locations other than NYC and SF (if even SF) suck. You then proceed to "prove" why they suck by saying stuff about the rest of the country, especially the South and Texas being "Hick" filled etc. In fairness you decided to take a more mature approach this time.

As far as NYC not being able to grow by much, that's true. But my point in bringing up the growth rates was not about saying that "NYC sucks" that's childish--it was to highlight the fact that the areas you claim suck and no one wants to live in, are growing rapidly. In other words the idea that areas like Texas and Atlanta suck and no one wants to live there are patently false.

BruceWayne: Has TLS made you incapable of having a conversation with another human being? If so, I suggest you leave this forum and sort out the bigger problems you probably have in your life.

Susman is actually above the NYC scale, so are Beck Redden, Gibbs and Bruns, and Bickel and Brewer.

See what I said here:

Aside from Susman and maybe other boutiques, the big firms in Texas (Baker Botts, V&E, Fulbright, etc.) all start at $160k

Weil Gotshal, Skadden, Dewet Lebeof, Howrey,Fish and Richardson and Gibson Dunn Texas are on the NYC scale

These are all firms with no sizeable presence in Texas. When a law student considers the TX market, they typically consider the big three (V&E, Fulbright, and Baker Botts), along with a handful of others. Moreover, within the TX market, these three firms are considered to be the market firms.

Susman pays way above market in Seattle, but we wouldn't then argue that the market is what Susman says it is.

the fact that Atlanta firms start at 145K and not 160K--which you yourself mentioned--means that you were ignorant about the facts (they are not on the NYC scale like you alluded to).

Actually, I meant to say in my initial post that "Atlanta, I believe, now typically starts at $145k." The above was a typo.

Edit: I think Paul Hastings Atlanta starts at $160k, though.

Has TLS made you inacapable of making a statement more mature and substantiated than "Texas and Atlanta are gross"?

Further, your RC is still slipping. I never said that Susman was an example of the market salary in Texas--I said it was above the NYC market scale. The point was made to further emphasize how wrong you were about Texas not having firms that matched the NYC scale. There are several Texas firms that match the NYC scale--some that I named. So not only were you wrong that they don't match, there are several that actually exceed the NYC scale; basically you were dead wrong and spreading your wrong statements as if they were facts.

Look, nice try trying to retract your initial statements by calling them "typos" and then using opinions but calling them facts (like saying that there are only 3 "relevant" firms in Texas V&E, BB, and Fulbright) to "strengthen" your point. The idea that those 3 firms are the only "relevant" ones in Texas is idiotic at best; but in reality you know that--you just needed to cover your incorrect statement that all Texas firms have a constrained salary scale. The reality is you came in and made an extremely ignorant comment--that places like Texas and Atlanta are "gross" and therefore "bad" places to live. Then "supporting" your stance by saying "that's why they cost less--duh". If you don't want someone to call you out, it might be a good idea to refrain from answering a thread with comments on par with the average elementary school student.

[A&O]

Has TLS made you inacapable of making a statement more mature and substantiated than "Texas and Atlanta are gross"?

Given that I've lived in both Atlanta and Texas for substantial portions of my life, shouldn't that be "substantiated" enough?

I never said that Susman was an example of the market salary in Texas--I said it was above the NYC market scale.

I know that, and this is what I said before you did. I'll bold the relevant part for you:

Aside from Susman and maybe other boutiques, the big firms in Texas (Baker Botts, V&E, Fulbright, etc.) all start at $160k

There are several Texas firms that match the NYC scale--some that I named.

Like I said, those are minor firms in the market. The firms that most students will consider, because they hire the most, are Vinson & Elkins, Fulbright & Jaworski, and Baker Botts.

nice try trying to retract your initial statements by calling them "typos" and then using opinions but calling them facts (like saying that there are only 3 "relevant" firms in Texas V&E, BB, and Fulbright) to "strengthen" your point.

"Typos?" I just made one typo.

The idea that those 3 firms are the only "relevant" ones in Texas is idiotic at best; but in reality you know that--you just needed to cover your incorrect statement that all Texas firms have a constrained salary scale.

Anybody who is familiar with the Texas market knows that these are the mainline Texas firm that any law student would consider, usually before most of the other firms you mentioned.

from answering a thread with comments on par with the average elementary school student.

Excuse me? You're the one throwing the insults. You're the 1L at UVA who doesn't have grades, who trolls against schools he can't get into, and now trolls against markets he can't get into either. You don't have to take my remarks against your only job prospects so personally.

[BruceWayne]

Has TLS made you inacapable of making a statement more mature and substantiated than "Texas and Atlanta are gross"?

Given that I've lived in both Atlanta and Texas for substantial portions of my life, shouldn't that be "substantiated" enough?

I never said that Susman was an example of the market salary in Texas--I said it was above the NYC market scale.

I know that, and this is what I said before you did. I'll bold the relevant part for you:

Aside from Susman and maybe other boutiques, the big firms in Texas (Baker Botts, V&E, Fulbright, etc.) all start at $160k

There are several Texas firms that match the NYC scale--some that I named.

Like I said, those are minor firms in the market. The firms that most students will consider, because they hire the most, are Vinson & Elkins, Fulbright & Jaworski, and Baker Botts.

nice try trying to retract your initial statements by calling them "typos" and then using opinions but calling them facts (like saying that there are only 3 "relevant" firms in Texas V&E, BB, and Fulbright) to "strengthen" your point.

"Typos?" I just made one typo.

The idea that those 3 firms are the only "relevant" ones in Texas is idiotic at best; but in reality you know that--you just needed to cover your incorrect statement that all Texas firms have a constrained salary scale.

Anybody who is familiar with the Texas market knows that these are the mainline Texas firm that any law student would consider, usually before most of the other firms you mentioned.

from answering a thread with comments on par with the average elementary school student.

Excuse me? You're the one throwing the insults. You're the 1L at UVA who doesn't have grades, who trolls against schools he can't get into, and now trolls against markets he can't get into either. You don't have to take my remarks against your only job prospects so personally.

WTF explain what schools "I can't get into" since you seem to know everything about me? Realistically the only schools I "couldn't have gotten into were HYS and Boalt, but since you seem to know so much enlighten me? Hell I know URMs who had worse numbers than I did but got into Harvard; but clearly you're are the expert on URM admission. "Market's I can't get into?" Do you have a small dick or something?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but who came into the thread saying bs like "Atlanta and Texas are gross, and that's why they have low costs of living". You know what don't worry about correcting me--your ignorant post is below.

I'm glad you're so fascinated with me that you did research on my background, apparently you didn't do enough.

Quality of Life" doesn't mean "where you get the most bang for your buck." That's "Cost of Living."

Texas and Atlanta might have lower costs of living, but you'd have to live in Texas or Atlanta. Gross.

Chicago has a legitimate argument.

And the Texas salary scales are not the same. Though they usually start at $160k, the raise-structure is more condensed than NYC. Atlanta, I believe, now typically starts at $160k.


And again your attempt to make it seem like Texas only has 3 firms that hire and are "relevant" are just lame as hell. Clearly you didn't know that there were several firms in Texas that matched NYC. You were wrong; get over it and move on. HTMFH

[A&O]

WTF explain what schools "I can't get into" since you seem to know everything about me?

Great! Now you know what it feels like when someone makes claims about you that have no basis.


And I definitely knew some firms' offices in Texas matched the New York City pay scale, but they aren't significant. V&E alone hires more summers than each of those satellite offices combined, to say nothing of F&J, and Baker Botts. Also, let's not forget:
Bracewell
Locke Lord
Haynes & Boone

But it seems that you have descended from reason into all out rage, possibly because...

u mad?

[BruceWayne]

WTF explain what schools "I can't get into" since you seem to know everything about me?

Great! Now you know what it feels like when someone makes claims about you that have no basis.


And I definitely knew some firms' offices in Texas matched the New York City pay scale, but they aren't significant. V&E alone hires more summers than each of those satellite offices combined, to say nothing of F&J, and Baker Botts. Also, let's not forget:
Bracewell
Locke Lord
Haynes & Boone

But it seems that you have descended from reason into all out rage, possibly because...

u mad?[/size]

LMAO....I guess you didn't do enough research to know that I was URM when you made the assertion that I was "trolling for schools I couldn't get into";nice "cover". Then again, even that's assuming that you knew my numbers. By the way, how the hell the fact that I don't have grades yet is relevant to this discussion at hand is beyond me. I suspect you brought it up because you were starting to say some pretty dumb stuff and wanted to find a way to make some ad hominems to make it appear that you knew what you were talking about.