Best Place To Work $$ Wise Forum

[bk1]

Sort of side tracking, but what is it with this weird new thing where our generation looks at owning a car as a "negative"? I noticed someone on here was bashing the fact that you have to have a car in Texas. With the salary you can make in a place like Dallas (say NY scale pay from Weil/Gibson etc.) and the Texas COL + no state income tax, you could drive a Porsche Cayman. Or even a 911 after year 4 or so. When did being a pedestrian become cool? Especially for a single guy trying to date? It's not exactly attractive to women to be a grown man but not be able to pick them up for a date. Maybe NYC is just that different from the rest of the country...

Well I think having to have a car sucks mainly from a debt perspective. Paying for a car coupled with all its attendant expenses (gas, insurance, etc) sucks when that money could be going into your loans instead.

It seems to me that in car areas (e.g. TX/CA), a person's car is wrapped up in their identity/image in ways that it really isn't in non-car areas (e.g. NYC/Chi).

[buckilaw]

Sort of side tracking, but what is it with this weird new thing where our generation looks at owning a car as a "negative"? I noticed someone on here was bashing the fact that you have to have a car in Texas. With the salary you can make in a place like Dallas (say NY scale pay from Weil/Gibson etc.) and the Texas COL + no state income tax, you could drive a Porsche Cayman. Or even a 911 after year 4 or so. When did being a pedestrian become cool? Especially for a single guy trying to date? It's not exactly attractive to women to be a grown man but not be able to pick them up for a date. Maybe NYC is just that different from the rest of the country...

Well I think having to have a car sucks mainly from a debt perspective. Paying for a car coupled with all its attendant expenses (gas, insurance, etc) sucks when that money could be going into your loans instead.

It seems to me that in car areas (e.g. TX/CA), a person's car is wrapped up in their identity/image in ways that it really isn't in non-car areas (e.g. NYC/Chi).

Our generation also tends to be more environmentally conscious, so people could be concerned about keeping their Carbon footprint small.

[fish52]

I haven't been to Texas in a decade. In Atlanta, LA, Charlotte, Miami, Richmond, Philly and many other large cities you basically need a car. Try getting an attractive woman in one of those cities with no car. Even in DC it's a good idea. I mean other than NYC, in what city is it really a good idea not to have a car at all?

Plenty of people don't own cars in Philly. You are certainly right about LA, but that's a pretty odd city. As for the others, who would want to live in those shitholes?

[BruceWayne]

Plenty of people don't own cars in Philly. You are certainly right about LA, but that's a pretty odd city. As for the others, who would want to live in those shitholes?

I know one thing; about half of those shitholes have women that are hot as shit. And they aren't feeling guys who have to meet them at the bus stop for a date.

[keg411]

Plenty of people don't own cars in Philly. You are certainly right about LA, but that's a pretty odd city. As for the others, who would want to live in those shitholes?

I know one thing; about half of those shitholes have women that are hot as shit. And they aren't feeling guys who have to meet them at the bus stop for a date.

This is obviously Richmond. Because that's a city known for its hotties.

[Perseus_I]

Plenty of people don't own cars in Philly. You are certainly right about LA, but that's a pretty odd city. As for the others, who would want to live in those shitholes?

I know one thing; about half of those shitholes have women that are hot as shit. And they aren't feeling guys who have to meet them at the bus stop for a date.

Buses do suck. If a city does not have a world class subway system, it is not a city worth living in.

There is a difference between owning a car for fun and picking up women on dates once you get your loans paid off and living somewhere where you have to drive everywhere as a practical matter. The former can be justified from an environmental perspective; the latter can't.

UPDATE: My brother lives in Dallas and says their light rail/subway system has improved significantly, so he rarely drives even though he has a car. If true, that would render much of this discussion moot.

[rayiner]

Plenty of people don't own cars in Philly. You are certainly right about LA, but that's a pretty odd city. As for the others, who would want to live in those shitholes?

I know one thing; about half of those shitholes have women that are hot as shit. And they aren't feeling guys who have to meet them at the bus stop for a date.

Buses do suck. If a city does not have a world class subway system, it is not a city worth living in.

Buses are great, at least in NY and Chicago. Clean, timely, and no having to go underground into a gross, hot subway station.

[WearyCartographer]

Plenty of people don't own cars in Philly. You are certainly right about LA, but that's a pretty odd city. As for the others, who would want to live in those shitholes?

I know one thing; about half of those shitholes have women that are hot as shit. And they aren't feeling guys who have to meet them at the bus stop for a date.

Buses do suck. If a city does not have a world class subway system, it is not a city worth living in.

Buses are great, at least in NY and Chicago. Clean, timely, and no having to go underground into a gross, hot subway station.

Seconded, I found the DC Bus system more convenient than the Metro just about 75% of the time (granted, the Metro is extremely clean).

[Perseus_I]

Plenty of people don't own cars in Philly. You are certainly right about LA, but that's a pretty odd city. As for the others, who would want to live in those shitholes?

I know one thing; about half of those shitholes have women that are hot as shit. And they aren't feeling guys who have to meet them at the bus stop for a date.

At least in my experience, the number of hot single women in a city is inversely proportional to the prevalence of car culture in the city. With the possible exception of LA. Richmond may have hot women. But how many of them are not either married or engaged?

According to those things Forbes does, the top single cities are always NYC, DC, Chicago, SF, or Austin - all environmentally conscious cities where car culture is frowned upon (though Austin doesn't fit that profile quite as well).

There's no fun driving around trying to date in some sunbelt city full of married and/or pregnant 19-year-olds.

[keg411]

My Richmond comment was a joke. 99% sure that Bruce Wayne was referring to Miami.

[HeavenWood]

Plenty of people don't own cars in Philly. You are certainly right about LA, but that's a pretty odd city. As for the others, who would want to live in those shitholes?

I know one thing; about half of those shitholes have women that are hot as shit. And they aren't feeling guys who have to meet them at the bus stop for a date.

At least in my experience, the number of hot single women in a city is inversely proportional to the prevalence of car culture in the city. With the possible exception of LA. Richmond may have hot women. But how many of them are not either married or engaged?

According to those things Forbes does, the top single cities are always NYC, DC, Chicago, SF, or Austin - all environmentally conscious cities where car culture is frowned upon (though Austin doesn't fit that profile quite as well).

There's no fun driving around trying to date in some sunbelt city full of married and/or pregnant 19-year-olds.

I don't think car culture is "frowned upon" in those cities other than San Francisco, and a lot of people do drive in DC and Chicago. In NYC it's simply inconvenient to have a car.

That's why I love Philly. Cars are not at all necessary, but having one is hardly an impediment. In fact, it's a nice luxury.

[Perseus_I]

Plenty of people don't own cars in Philly. You are certainly right about LA, but that's a pretty odd city. As for the others, who would want to live in those shitholes?

I know one thing; about half of those shitholes have women that are hot as shit. And they aren't feeling guys who have to meet them at the bus stop for a date.

At least in my experience, the number of hot single women in a city is inversely proportional to the prevalence of car culture in the city. With the possible exception of LA. Richmond may have hot women. But how many of them are not either married or engaged?

According to those things Forbes does, the top single cities are always NYC, DC, Chicago, SF, or Austin - all environmentally conscious cities where car culture is frowned upon (though Austin doesn't fit that profile quite as well).

There's no fun driving around trying to date in some sunbelt city full of married and/or pregnant 19-year-olds.

I don't think car culture is "frowned upon" in those cities other than San Francisco, and a lot of people do drive in DC and Chicago. In NYC it's simply inconvenient to have a car.

That's why I love Philly. Cars are not at all necessary, but having one is hardly an impediment. In fact, it's a nice luxury.

I almost went to school in Philly. I would never live there, but I like the sentiment. Why can't a car be a luxury like it is even in super rich northern Europe? They take good freakin' care of their cars there, too, unlike most Americans. That's how it ought to be. If you aren't driving super clean Jaguar or a Mercedes, and just for fun, you shouldn't be driving.

A lot of people in D.C. do not drive. I lived there for 8 months. Even people who have cars frequently do not use them because the traffic is awful. The metro there is awesome, fast, and clean -- and I hear it's gotten even better in the five years since I was there. I am not sure about Chicago. I have only visited, and I didn't like their light rail/subway much.

The point is, environmentally conscious young people do not have to drive in these cities. If you're worried about dating, these types of cities are also superior for dating. Given Dallas' and Houston's high vacancy rates, I think owning a downtown house in either city is not a good investment. In NYC, it absolutely would be. Also, from NYC, you're more likely to get the type of work that will give you good options, including options in TX, if Big Law turns out not to be your thing.

I just perused UT's OCI. It's downright scary how many firms there are in TX that only do litigation. If you do litigation at a parochial firm, you non-law/corporate/in-house options are essentially nil.

[rayiner]

A lot of people in D.C. do not drive. I lived there for 8 months. Even people who have cars frequently do not use them because the traffic is awful. The metro there is awesome, fast, and clean -- and I hear it's gotten even better in the five years since I was there. I am not sure about Chicago. I have only visited, and I didn't like their light rail/subway much.

People do drive in Chicago, but there are also people who don't drive. I don't miss my car, but I love in River North and have pretty much everything within walking distance. The bus system here is also extremely convenient--clean, fast, and very punctual.

[HeavenWood]

When I spent my summer in DC, I would obviously take the metro to work, but I would drive a lot on the weekends to check out outer-lying neighborhoods, along with the MD/VA suburbs. Again, while having a car was certainly not necessary, I didn't find it much of a hassle, and I certainly didn't get flak from people for owning one. I don't own a car to "impress people." I own a car because I love to drive/explore the world around me. You may take issue with the fact that I drive a gas-guzzling SUV, but again, I couldn't give two fucks if that ruffles your eco-conscious feathers.

And unless you already have a ton of money lying around, I don't see how it would be possible for someone to purchase even a quarter-decent property in Manhattan fresh out of lawl skool. Real estate is a shitty short-term investment anyway (and a rather tenuous long-term one). Buying is generally a bad idea unless you plan on sticking around for at least 5 years.

[RVP11]

I almost went to school in Philly. I would never live there, but I like the sentiment. Why can't a car be a luxury like it is even in super rich northern Europe? They take good freakin' care of their cars there, too, unlike most Americans. That's how it ought to be. If you aren't driving super clean Jaguar or a Mercedes, and just for fun, you shouldn't be driving.

A lot of people in D.C. do not drive. I lived there for 8 months. Even people who have cars frequently do not use them because the traffic is awful. The metro there is awesome, fast, and clean -- and I hear it's gotten even better in the five years since I was there. I am not sure about Chicago. I have only visited, and I didn't like their light rail/subway much.

The point is, environmentally conscious young people do not have to drive in these cities. If you're worried about dating, these types of cities are also superior for dating. Given Dallas' and Houston's high vacancy rates, I think owning a downtown house in either city is not a good investment. In NYC, it absolutely would be. Also, from NYC, you're more likely to get the type of work that will give you good options, including options in TX, if Big Law turns out not to be your thing.

I just perused UT's OCI. It's downright scary how many firms there are in TX that only do litigation. If you do litigation at a parochial firm, you non-law/corporate/in-house options are essentially nil.

WTF are you talking about? You seem like a 0L without a clue.

[Perseus_I]

I almost went to school in Philly. I would never live there, but I like the sentiment. Why can't a car be a luxury like it is even in super rich northern Europe? They take good freakin' care of their cars there, too, unlike most Americans. That's how it ought to be. If you aren't driving super clean Jaguar or a Mercedes, and just for fun, you shouldn't be driving.

A lot of people in D.C. do not drive. I lived there for 8 months. Even people who have cars frequently do not use them because the traffic is awful. The metro there is awesome, fast, and clean -- and I hear it's gotten even better in the five years since I was there. I am not sure about Chicago. I have only visited, and I didn't like their light rail/subway much.

The point is, environmentally conscious young people do not have to drive in these cities. If you're worried about dating, these types of cities are also superior for dating. Given Dallas' and Houston's high vacancy rates, I think owning a downtown house in either city is not a good investment. In NYC, it absolutely would be. Also, from NYC, you're more likely to get the type of work that will give you good options, including options in TX, if Big Law turns out not to be your thing.

I just perused UT's OCI. It's downright scary how many firms there are in TX that only do litigation. If you do litigation at a parochial firm, you non-law/corporate/in-house options are essentially nil.

WTF are you talking about? You seem like a 0L without a clue.

Given how much the first year of law school teaches about the practice of law, it is certainly possible. There are some firms in Dallas that do significant transactional work for Fortune 500 clients. But even many of the national firms show small practices in this area on NALP. The sheer size of some of the offices in NYC dwarfs the size of the Dallas offices for the top firms; though I spent my summer working for a judge, and have little first-hand knowledge of private practice, I cannot help but reason that fewer lawyers means fewer resources and fewer huge clients. Like many regional offices, Dallas appears to be litigation heavy (though not so much as Little Rock and other even more parochial places). Houston might be better because of the presence of the oil industry. I am not sure.

Partly as a result of its placement in Texas, which has a lot of regional firms, UT also sends significantly fewer students to the NLJ 250 than some similarly ranked law schools that primarily place in New York. Some of these regional firms even pay market; however, the do not boast the same caliber of clients as the NYC firms do. A small Dallas litigation firm might make you a lot of money as a lawyer, but if law firm life is not for you, your exit options out of such a firm to a Fortune 500 company are worse than your exit options out of Gibson Dunn, NY would be.

I am saying, as a whole, work in Texas is less likely to lead to a plump Fortune 500 gig than Big Law work in New York City. So at least in on specific area, your exit options out of Texas are more likely than not to be inferior to your exit options out of NYC - where you're doing more high profile work for larger clients. Larger companies typically pay more than smaller companies for in-house gigs.

You also need to consider that the offer rate at Texas firms is atrocious; some firms had 50% offer rates or less even before the recession. One partner put it this way: "You'll get an offer in NYC if you don't screw up, but to get an offer in TX, you have to impress us." Going to TX for the big bucks could quite easily mean coming up empty.

[SuperCerealBrah]

did not read the whole thread, but in general these rules are good for making money...

1. Do something either better than most or do something nobody else wants to do.

2. Live in an area that has a high "buying power" index as referenced in NALP chart.

3. ???

4. Be happy and profit

[BruceWayne]

Given how much the first year of law school teaches about the practice of law, it is certainly possible. There are some firms in Dallas that do significant transactional work for Fortune 500 clients. But even many of the national firms show small practices in this area on NALP. The sheer size of some of the offices in NYC dwarfs the size of the Dallas offices for the top firms; though I spent my summer working for a judge, and have little first-hand knowledge of private practice, I cannot help but reason that fewer lawyers means fewer resources and fewer huge clients. Like many regional offices, Dallas appears to be litigation heavy (though not so much as Little Rock and other even more parochial places). Houston might be better because of the presence of the oil industry. I am not sure.

Partly as a result of its placement in Texas, which has a lot of regional firms, UT also sends significantly fewer students to the NLJ 250 than some similarly ranked law schools that primarily place in New York. Some of these regional firms even pay market; however, the do not boast the same caliber of clients as the NYC firms do. A small Dallas litigation firm might make you a lot of money as a lawyer, but if law firm life is not for you, your exit options out of such a firm to a Fortune 500 company are worse than your exit options out of Gibson Dunn, NY would be.

I am saying, as a whole, work in Texas is less likely to lead to a plump Fortune 500 gig than Big Law work in New York City. So at least in on specific area, your exit options out of Texas are more likely than not to be inferior to your exit options out of NYC - where you're doing more high profile work for larger clients. Larger companies typically pay more than smaller companies for in-house gigs.

You also need to consider that the offer rate at Texas firms is atrocious; some firms had 50% offer rates or less even before the recession. One partner put it this way: "You'll get an offer in NYC if you don't screw up, but to get an offer in TX, you have to impress us." Going to TX for the big bucks could quite easily mean coming up empty.

Not trying to be an ass, but you sound like someone who has a very narrow understanding of the practice of law; and one that got most of that understanding from this website. For one, this strange idea that you seem to have about litigation being "inferior" or "bad" career wise (i.e for exit options) to transactional work is weird. Also, your thinking that non NYC means "low quality" clients is also weird. Finally, your thinking about in house only hiring former transactional lawyers is even more odd. That offer rate thing is, in addition, sort of random and incorrect/misunderstands how the Texas market works (for example, the fact that many Texas firms expect their summers to split so people work at 2 firms in a summer).

[BKB]

HK. You get up to 100K on top of Cravath scale, no state income tax, and a substantively lower federal tax thanks to foreign tax credits. You can get close to twice the disposable income.