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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not really. They would not be a partner till 35-40 so that is not enough time.

Most firms start promoting associates to partners around years 7/8. So someone who went straight through UG to law school could be a partner in their early 30s. That’s pretty typical.

Those days are long over. 1. Less people go straight through so they are 28 or older as a first year. 2. It would be rare to make partner earlier than 10 years at a good firm. In fact, more like 10-12 or more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not really. They would not be a partner till 35-40 so that is not enough time.

Most firms start promoting associates to partners around years 7/8. So someone who went straight through UG to law school could be a partner in their early 30s. That’s pretty typical.

Those days are long over. 1. Less people go straight through so they are 28 or older as a first year. 2. It would be rare to make partner earlier than 10 years at a good firm. In fact, more like 10-12 or more.

+1

And the top associates also did 1-2 years of clerkship. And many DC Big Law partners do a stint in government to get regulatory experience. The add on at least as 2-4 years as an income partner before making the jump to equity.

12 or more years post law school is much more common than 7.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not really. They would not be a partner till 35-40 so that is not enough time.

Most firms start promoting associates to partners around years 7/8. So someone who went straight through UG to law school could be a partner in their early 30s. That’s pretty typical.

Those days are long over. 1. Less people go straight through so they are 28 or older as a first year. 2. It would be rare to make partner earlier than 10 years at a good firm. In fact, more like 10-12 or more.

+1

And the top associates also did 1-2 years of clerkship. And many DC Big Law partners do a stint in government to get regulatory experience. The add on at least as 2-4 years as an income partner before making the jump to equity.

12 or more years post law school is much more common than 7.

I find more people from my top law school who made partner went straight through. Older people prioritized work-life balance and went in house much earlier, at quite prestigious positions fwiw.

[Anonymous]

I don't ascribe to Marxism entirely nor do I think his points can be entirely dismissed. In the words of the immortal and undefeated Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich: "Capitalism is an 18th century ideology, Marxism is a 19th century ideology, we are in the 21st century, why haven't we moved beyond two outdated ideas?"

The bourgeoisie and proletariat here and in most of the US is between the people who work for a living and people who own things for a living. A salaried professional who earns $150K has more in common with a service employee who earns $45K than an asset owner who brings in $500K to millions+ with various sources of passive income. You have to have capital to make capital (and, it's taxed less, because the Dystopian States of America). Rich people will say any smart person can earn passive income and own assets, but that's BS. It's either the rare, rags-to-riches American Dream fantasy that some people are still deluded enough to believe in which yes involves hard work but also being in the exact right place at the exact right time, but more likely, it's from generational wealth, connections, and insider knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't ascribe to Marxism entirely nor do I think his points can be entirely dismissed. In the words of the immortal and undefeated Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich: "Capitalism is an 18th century ideology, Marxism is a 19th century ideology, we are in the 21st century, why haven't we moved beyond two outdated ideas?"

The bourgeoisie and proletariat here and in most of the US is between the people who work for a living and people who own things for a living. A salaried professional who earns $150K has more in common with a service employee who earns $45K than an asset owner who brings in $500K to millions+ with various sources of passive income. You have to have capital to make capital (and, it's taxed less, because the Dystopian States of America). Rich people will say any smart person can earn passive income and own assets, but that's BS. It's either the rare, rags-to-riches American Dream fantasy that some people are still deluded enough to believe in which yes involves hard work but also being in the exact right place at the exact right time, but more likely, it's from generational wealth, connections, and insider knowledge.

No, I think it’s about advanced degrees/education. If you did not grow up with parents who had advanced degrees, it’s all about you getting advanced degree/pedigree/credentials so you become part of that “working wealthy” - The lawyers and doctors accountants. That is essential.
Yes, that group is connected, you learn the inside info even if you weren't born with it.

And your children them will simply be wealthy (and will grow up connected with plenty of advantages) and they can be business openers and invest additional capital/purchase assets as a business owner.

This is how it works in this country (or did before generative AI which will change this roadmap)….