Date: December 1st, 2008 10:52 PM Author: hideous titillating black woman jap
Where is what you're saying true?
I have friends who live REASONABLY comfortably in Manhattan for $20,000/year.
There's no major city where there's nowhere to live that's not less than >5x as expensive as Manhattan. Complicated sentence there but I think I got the message across.
Date: December 1st, 2008 11:44 PM Author: hideous titillating black woman jap
Regular NY apartments, with roommates, in Uptown, in Chinatown. They go to bars. They eat food. They bathe. They take the subway. They consume what they need and bits of what they desire.
Date: December 2nd, 2008 3:01 AM Author: Concupiscible sick cruise ship
while u are 100% correct, this does seem to be the appropriate forum to imply that one can live off that sort of money in the city. i was born in such conditions (Harlem/Wash Heights . . . uptown baby) and it was perfectly fine. but in a forum where non-BIGLAW = failure, i don't think they would quite understand.
What? No way I plan on buying the business that employs me, that employed my father, and his father before him. I'll come up with 1.2m to own a business that nets 250K, just so I can tell obama to suck it.
Date: December 1st, 2008 5:02 PM Author: Iridescent Doctorate
I will be rich; if not by working then by inheritance. Obviously, this depends on what one classifies as rich, but based upon what I'd get via inheritance, I'd land in the top 1-2% of all American's in terms of net worth.
Your hypersensitivity isn't very encouraging. It's pretty obvious that you don't embrace the true spirit of XOXO and are going to try to turn this website into yet another case brief dumpster. All we really want is for you to delete spam, not try to revamp the whole fucking format of the site in a pathetic attempt to legitimize yourself.
The true spirit of XOXO is a bunch of dudes talking about whatever the hell they want without inhibition, with a minor underlying theme of law/law school.
Date: December 1st, 2008 8:45 PM Author: rachmiel Subject: Okay.
Yes
Ahh, I see you edited your post above. Lemme see.
Dude, I don't care about legitimizing myself. Really. I couldn't care less what people think of me online, and my online life's never bled over into my real life. I do care about what people here think, but only because I want them to have confidence in where I'm going to take the board. I just want to preserve this place and keep the eternal... err, flame, for lack of a better word, going. But if you're not growing, you're shrinking.
I'm not going to turn this into 4lawschool. The purpose of that site was completely different. I bought it for the content, and then I stuffed the site with ads to make my money back.
My goal here is not to milk this site for whatever I can make off it with ads like 4lawschool. I want to build traffic here and get back the crowd that moved to ATL, and I know it's possible. I won't take the board away from its roots. But you can't expect me to only go so far with this. I'm sorry you think I'm a prick.
Look, I'm sure you have the best intentions and I'm sorry for calling you a prick. You've actually been a good sport throughout all this. It's just that all these ideas for BIG CHANGES are pretty scary and have me on edge. I really like this place the way it is--very laissez faire--although I do support the idea of very limited moderation (i.e. deleting megaposter spam). While you say you won't let the board totally get away from its roots, it's just it's not clear how far away from them we're going to get. That's where my apprehension lies.
I don't care if you do some content development-- but please god limit your pie chart bullshit on the sidebars of the site and fuck with the board as little as possible.
Anyway, thanks for hearing me out. I appreciate it.
PS: One final request, while I have you... Please delete the Grad board. TY.
Sure. I totally understand why you're skeptical. I think what I'm going to do is get rid of all the shit on the sides, and actually take the board back to its true roots, rather than taking it away from them. There are some features that I think will make the discussion board better, but I love the format and the chaos just as much as anyone and I won't let that be jeopardized.
As for the grad board, I'm actually going to try to build it, but I haven't even looked at it yet because I haven't brought moderation over there yet.
Date: December 1st, 2008 10:07 PM Author: awkward tripping death wish
And this statement is the prefect embodiment of the middle class ethos - you're just "comfortable," meaning you can afford everything you need in life plus whatever little mid-priced luxuries you desire.
Being rich is a different universe. Rich means that you don't worry about working - if you want to blow off everything and travel for three months, you do that without hesitation. Rich means that if you fall in love with whatever city/area you stay in for a while, you can actually consider buying a place there without completely rearranging your life and finances. Rich means that you shop without ever looking at a price and that your money earns enough money sitting around to support your daily spending.
Very few people who go into law ever reach a level where they can enjoy this sort of lifestyle. Everybody else is just staking out their slot in the same little economic group. Ultimately, the difference between the Midlaw partner making $320K a year and the in-house guy who topped out at $140K a year is a thousand square feet of house (depending on where they live) and how much they're sweating their kid's college tuition. Their ultimate affluence and wealth might seem disparate to people at that level, but the difference is marginal if you consider what true wealth actually entrails.
Date: December 1st, 2008 10:12 PM Author: Fishy trip french chef
On that definition of "rich", which would entail at least $5M in assets to support a lifestyle like that, then we're certainly not rich, and wouldn't be for quite a few years yet.
Date: December 1st, 2008 10:39 PM Author: awkward tripping death wish
$5 million in assets isn't bad, but it's not total freedom either. There are plenty of people who are technically multi-millionaires in total assets who nonetheless worry about money and can't exactly kick back and do whatever they like as a result of their modest success. There's also something to be said for the fact that rich doesn't quite mean the same thing if it's your status only after decades of working. At that point you've never really reaped the benefit of the lifestyle, you've just stockpiled money for your kids.
Essentially, if you earn a salary for the majority of your career and you're not a C-level exec or one of the few people in other professions who attain a similar rank, you'll never be 'rich' in the sense of real wealth. As somebody else already noted, the best you can hope for is solidly upper-middle class. The vast majority of people who practice law are strivers who are completely pleased to attain this level of affluence and could care less if they work for years and years just to be able to claim it, so it actually doesn't work out too badly for most people.
The average law striver is a guy like Meanest Fish who literally gets out of bed each morning for the joy and status he feels is attached with ~$200K salary (what even many TTT doctors makes easily, by the way, not that I'm trolling for docs here). He'll never really be wealthy and law is truly only a marginally prestigious profession, but for him and his ilk, it's the American dream come to full fruition.
Date: December 1st, 2008 10:47 PM Author: Fishy trip french chef
Technically equity partners don't earn a salary, they are paid a share of partnership profits.
I'll bump my estimate of wealth up to $8M for the level you need to be at where you have absolutely no money concerns at all and can spend freely living off interest and earnings on your assets.
It's certainly possible to eventually reach that wealth level via being a partner in a large firm or running a very successful smaller firm, but it's not going to happen overnight.
Date: December 1st, 2008 11:22 PM Author: unhinged talented garrison
No offense, but if somebody's master plan is to become an equity Biglaw partner, then they're definitely both striving and deluded. This is going to end up being about 1% or less of all attorneys, and they'll have worked like dogs (and will continue to work their asses off) for their piece of the pie.
Law is not a profession for becoming rich. Banking, specialized medicine, or entrepreneurship are the surest paths to actually becoming wealthy. Fortunately lawyers can go the entrepreneur route, but that takes us back to the problem of most lawyers being socially inept and hilariously risk-averse, not to mention the problem of securing real start-up capital (which can be minimal if you're good, but this gets heavily situational). Still, any Biglaw associate who has real acumen in their field and some business ability would be a lot better off going their own way than sticking around their shitty firm hoping that their hard work is noticed and an equity partnership just falls into their lap before they're 55 years old.
Date: December 1st, 2008 11:36 PM Author: awkward tripping death wish
Troof.
I remember many 2Ls at my school started figuring out the way the legal hierarchy actually works, and they all began saying that they knew that just working as a Biglaw associate for a few years probably won't set them up permanently, so now they were all going to stay on for ten years, make partner, THEN lateral or something and become a really rich lawyer who lives an awesome life. It was funny, even back then when the lack of realism in this scenario was a new and grim reality.
This is actually more much more attainable for people who work in v75 type situations where they have a guaranteed form of partnership and don't really work that many hours, but it's obviously much less lucrative than real Biglaw. I'm reading between the lines, but this is probably what twentynine has in mind, not being awarded partnership at Cravath or something. Even so, I know an awful lot of partners in decent firms who aren't worth nearly $5 million, but there are outside considerations how much money people are able to save. Virtually everyone I know who has real money owns something, be it real estate or a lucrative businesses (or businesses). There aren't many other ways to do accumulate real money quickly.
I do know that among people who live lifestyle like "the rich," even a net worth of $10 million isn't really impressive. These people own three, four homes, maintain cars at all of them, boats, have memberships to clubs in every city where they spend time (and they pay a lot for the two months of the year they use them), don't really work, and travel extravagantly whenever they want to. That's a far cry from your average dude who climbed up to partner at his mid-sized law firm after sixteen years in the business.
Date: December 1st, 2008 11:56 PM Author: self-centered ruddy school cafeteria queen of the night
"I do know that among people who live lifestyle like "the rich," even a net worth of $10 million isn't really impressive. These people own three, four homes, maintain cars at all of them, boats, have memberships to clubs in every city where they spend time (and they pay a lot for the two months of the year they use them), don't really work, and travel extravagantly whenever they want to. "
Date: December 2nd, 2008 12:33 AM Author: red really tough guy mental disorder
1. Family money or through marriage
2. New money windfalls
Very few people at that level are just regular professionals who just managed to invest and save, and that includes doctors and lawyers. Business and ownership is where real money comes from - everybody else spends years working and saving just to eek out a percentage of what people who generate real wealth are worth. The disparity is huge, and real wealth is rare, like top 0.01% rare. Anybody who thinks they're really going to be "rich" under any definition in law without starting their own firm and doing very well is retarded. It's a striver profession and it always will be - you have to work too hard and too long to get ahead, and even then the rewards are pwned by lots of other professions.
Date: December 2nd, 2008 10:10 AM Author: Saffron Cuck
" Rich means that you shop without ever looking at a price"
I love xoxo's convictions about how everyone with money lives. I know people who are Forbes400 rich who are cheap as anything and will ask about and haggle almost all prices. The only people who think buying without asking how much it costs is "prestigious" are rappers and the nouveau riche.
Date: December 1st, 2008 7:13 PM Author: Iridescent Doctorate
why do people think it's so difficult to become rich? all it takes is 1 solid idea, a decent network of individuals with money, and some brass balls. if you attended a top prep school, top college, or top professional school, this should not be all that difficult.
Date: December 1st, 2008 7:54 PM Author: white exhilarant hall
going into law IS accepting you will never be rich. You are admitting that you don't have the entrepreneurial talents needed to become rich. virtually no lawyers can ever be called more than upper middle class.
You assume everybody stays in biglaw. You can leave and enter the business world, make connections and start your own thing, or just luck out. There are few professions that set you up with the "possibility" of being rich other than law. And those that do can be entered into by people with top law credentials.
As long as I don't fuck up, I'll make way more money than my parents did while I was growing up (combined), and more than they make right now (also combined). That is sufficiently rich to make me happy, and enable me to help the 'rents out. That's all I ever wanted.
Date: December 1st, 2008 11:47 PM Author: French Free-loading Parlor
I've seen wealth and you really don't get that way unless you're born into it. Takes generations to accumulate wealth and smart people to shelter/invest it properly.
If you aren't born into it, and you went to law school, chances are you have a fair amount of debt and so it's even harder to become wealthy in one generation.
Date: December 2nd, 2008 12:23 AM Author: flesh sweet tailpipe office
Serious question. How much do partners as mid-size firms in mid-level markets make? Say a decent sized firm in a city like Portland, OR? I would assume a decent amount of biglaw people could jump ship to a place like that and could invest a pretty sizable amount of money over the course of 10 or 15 years.
Date: December 2nd, 2008 4:18 AM Author: Blathering Indirect Expression
I think the profits per partner at Portland's largest firm are around $350k or so. That's the equivalent of roughly $900k in New York, and more than enough for a very comfortable lifestyle.
Date: December 2nd, 2008 2:55 AM Author: indecent base
No, I still think we will be rich. I don't expect 5-6 million, but I find 3 million to be a very realistic goal. And although that may not be enough to allow you to do anything you want, it is certainly enough to make you feel rich in most parts of the world.
Date: December 2nd, 2008 10:13 AM Author: Saffron Cuck
TMF, I am going to buy an apartment in Moscow and hire you as staff at 250k/year (which you'll take as it's a raise) just so I can humiliate you daily.
Date: December 2nd, 2008 4:13 AM Author: bateful house
I am shocked that Mandy remains faithful that she and Fish will one day strive their way into economic affluence. Serious question: do you guys talk about this before you fuck, or just after?
At least you have a much more reasonable expectation for how much money a couple of lawyers can reasonably accumulate and what that means. Lulz to the rest of the people in this thread modestly estimating that it 'may take a while' before they're worth five million. This is law, and them there's banking and finance numbers.
Date: December 2nd, 2008 10:16 AM Author: Iridescent Doctorate
huh? you're joking right? the guy said he's a biglaw lawyer and his wife will be doing neurosurgery/plastic surgery. Assuming he's 30, they could have an average income of 750k/yr for at least 25 years. That would gross $18.75m. Once you take out taxes and add investments, it's not that unreasonable for them to amass $10-15 million by the time they're like 60 yrs old.
Date: December 2nd, 2008 10:18 AM Author: Saffron Cuck
Yea, because most people spend 25 years in BIGLAW. It doesn't seem "likely" that a Dr./Lawyer couple is banking 15mm unless they inherit are large chunk of that.
Date: December 2nd, 2008 10:44 AM Author: Iridescent Doctorate
you assume they are very average investors who just throw their money into some crap mutual fund and you're also assuming they are going to live at their means; not somewhat or greatly below it. just because you make 750k/yr doesn't mean you have to live like a king. you buy your necessities and a few wants and bank/invest the rest intelligently. that would get them 10-15 mil by age 60.
Date: May 30th, 2011 2:18 AM Author: Fishy trip french chef
What's rich? If you mean $100M rich then yes I have accepted we will never have that much. However, if you mean $10M rich then that's actually quite possible.