The DC Legal Proletariat Isn't Rich - the Bourgeoisie Is

[Anonymous]

If a DC biglaw partner was childfree & lived in a <$1M house they’d be able to retire by 45.

[Anonymous]

or transition to less demanding in-house counsel

[Anonymous]

or shift to working on legal matters that may be less remunerative but closer to what they enjoy doing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:or shift to working on legal matters that may be less remunerative but closer to what they enjoy doing

Wait, you think most DC Big Law partners are not passionate about the substance of their work and don't truly love it?
I thought that is why they still work long hours as partners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:or shift to working on legal matters that may be less remunerative but closer to what they enjoy doing

Wait, you think most DC Big Law partners are not passionate about the substance of their work and don't truly love it?
I thought that is why they still work long hours as partners.

Their “work” at that stage consists of schmoozing 90% of the time to keep a big book of business. Lots of wining & dining potential clients. Golfing, too.

[Anonymous]

Even if partners aren't doing the grunt work on cases they are still responsible for outcomes and growing the book of business. There is a lot of pressure in those activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DC area is primarily just upper middle class. The real money is in and around NYC, Dallas, Miami and San Francisco.

Thrown in Jackson Hole, Park City, Bozeman, Aspen & Telluride which gained a ton of year-round residents post-COVID. Tons of wealth in Austin Hill Country too.

I agree with this statement. I live in one of those cities and the wealth discussion and gripes about “unaffordable” Bethesda homes seem so provincial to me. A $2-3M house would basically be a ranch house, albeit renovated, where I live. You’d be one of the “poors” in the private school circle with that kind of house.

Anyway, despite all the complaining here, DC lawyers have a good lifestyle and seem to be respected enough there. They don’t know how good they have it.

There are multiple layers of irony to pull back here. Unintentional, but well done nonetheless.

I did not aim for irony here, just describing what I see every single day. I absolutely know how f****d up it is. Hate living here, but too lethargic to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:or shift to working on legal matters that may be less remunerative but closer to what they enjoy doing

Wait, you think most DC Big Law partners are not passionate about the substance of their work and don't truly love it?
I thought that is why they still work long hours as partners.

Are Hunton really passionate about expanding pollution or keeping tobacco viable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one requirement for being wealthy is to have the option to not work. Not sure if you are wealthy, no matter how much you have, without this option.

Many, many DC homeowners could sell their home $1.5M home, move somewhere a few hours away & never work again.

+1, and if you are making 500k in DC on dual income, odds are good that you could live simply for a few years, sock it away, and then move to a place with lower COL and never truly work again, having no debt and mostly living of investment proceeds.

The issue is that what OP is describing as the proletariat includes a lot of people with constantly evolving lifestyles. And the evolution of the lifestyle is sort of the point, because it's how they prove their "success" to others. It is not enough to have a nice home, kids in private schools, to take nice vacations and to simply not worry about ever having to work for food and housing again. It is necessary to always be grasping for newer/more/better in all categories, to prove that you are not merely well off but moving always in an upwardly mobile direction.

I don't think Marx applies because I think the advance stage of capitalism we now live in has produced a category of people who are so warped by the dictates of capitalism (more more more) that they are unable to recognize their own secure position. They grasp like peasantry despite having the resources of the bourgeoisie. I suppose, yes, they are proletariat, but the group OP is talking about (people making incomes of 500k+) do not actually HAVE to work these jobs to survive or even to thrive. They choose to, but pretend it is not a choice. It's like a mental illness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:or shift to working on legal matters that may be less remunerative but closer to what they enjoy doing

Wait, you think most DC Big Law partners are not passionate about the substance of their work and don't truly love it?
I thought that is why they still work long hours as partners.

Are Hunton really passionate about expanding pollution or keeping tobacco viable?

They’re passionate about keeping their founder’s granddaughter’s pedophilia out of the news

[Anonymous]

They're not proletariat. They're petite bourgeouisie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The endless debates on DCUM about whether double income families with a $500K to $2 million in HHI are rich seems to result from a conflation of income distribution data-based definitions of "rich" and more reasonable definitions of wealth based on net worth.

Marx provided some useful social definitions of class in a capitalist society.

In our flavor of capitalism, there is no monarchs. aristocracy, nobility, etc. The closest analogues in our society are life-long officials in the Supreme Court, professional politicians Congress and dynasties that have easier access to the Presidential office nationally or the Governorship in States. These comprise a small number of people in our society.

We have a peasantry in our society which tracks with peasantries in history. These are the folks today fighting to survive on or close to minimum wage, struggling economically through life. This is the analogue to the lower social and economic classes in our society.

There is a bourgeoisie which is defined simply as those who are able to live well from the proceeds of their ownership of capital. Work is optional. Some choose to work hard to preserve or expand their capital, but the key is that work is a choice. This is the analogue to the upper social and economic classes in our society.

Finally there is the proletariat which is defined as the class that exchanges their time and labor for money and that is, for all intents and purposes, the only thing that they have to earn a living. This is the analogue to the middle social and economic classes in our society.

Most high legal HHI households in the DMV that are on DCUM either fall in:

the proletariat if they lack enough net worth to produce the income needed to replace their income from work or the income needed to maintain their HHI lifestyle

and

the bourgeoisie if their net worth is greater than the amount they need to generate the income to maintain their high HHI lifestyle independent of what they choose to do for work.

The Bourgeoisie is rich. The Proletariat is struggling to survive socially and economically and to transition from upper middle class to rich.

If you have a $2 million HHI but you are one pink slip away from bankruptcy because you spend in a way that leaves you in a hole every month, it is a tragic position in our society. You don't control your time and your security depends on not being hit by a car or having an event that keeps you from working. But no one will shed a tear if they slip and fall.

Regardless of how you feel about Marx's views on his ideal society, which suffers from a poor economic incentive structure, his observations about capitalism and its structure appear useful.

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're not proletariat. They're petite bourgeouisie.

I see this class more like trump and that ilk rather than biglaw drones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The endless debates on DCUM about whether double income families with a $500K to $2 million in HHI are rich seems to result from a conflation of income distribution data-based definitions of "rich" and more reasonable definitions of wealth based on net worth.

Marx provided some useful social definitions of class in a capitalist society.

In our flavor of capitalism, there is no monarchs. aristocracy, nobility, etc. The closest analogues in our society are life-long officials in the Supreme Court, professional politicians Congress and dynasties that have easier access to the Presidential office nationally or the Governorship in States. These comprise a small number of people in our society.

We have a peasantry in our society which tracks with peasantries in history. These are the folks today fighting to survive on or close to minimum wage, struggling economically through life. This is the analogue to the lower social and economic classes in our society.

There is a bourgeoisie which is defined simply as those who are able to live well from the proceeds of their ownership of capital. Work is optional. Some choose to work hard to preserve or expand their capital, but the key is that work is a choice. This is the analogue to the upper social and economic classes in our society.

Finally there is the proletariat which is defined as the class that exchanges their time and labor for money and that is, for all intents and purposes, the only thing that they have to earn a living. This is the analogue to the middle social and economic classes in our society.

Most high legal HHI households in the DMV that are on DCUM either fall in:

the proletariat if they lack enough net worth to produce the income needed to replace their income from work or the income needed to maintain their HHI lifestyle

and

the bourgeoisie if their net worth is greater than the amount they need to generate the income to maintain their high HHI lifestyle independent of what they choose to do for work.

The Bourgeoisie is rich. The Proletariat is struggling to survive socially and economically and to transition from upper middle class to rich.

If you have a $2 million HHI but you are one pink slip away from bankruptcy because you spend in a way that leaves you in a hole every month, it is a tragic position in our society. You don't control your time and your security depends on not being hit by a car or having an event that keeps you from working. But no one will shed a tear if they slip and fall.

Regardless of how you feel about Marx's views on his ideal society, which suffers from a poor economic incentive structure, his observations about capitalism and its structure appear useful.

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

It is a Wendy's, but if you think someone else got the extra beef patty you deserved, you'll still pretend you're in charge of the Michelin stars.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t know that the kind of law OP is describing existed until I moved to DC. I thought all lawyers helped you with your divorce or to sue someone because they injured you.