Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three kids is what really blows my mind. I am in Chicago, and the professionals that wanna live in the city routinely stop at two kids.

I wonder if it’s a case that they are having the third to finally get a much wanted boy or girl.

Well then she is a lawyer, apparently a good one, so you have to plan for that and make decisions. Choosing to have a 3rd means housing gets much more expensive/it's really challenging to live in only a 2 bedroom anymore.

I always tell people considering a 3rd (after two boys or two girls) to be very certain the reason they are having a 3rd is because they actually want a 3rd, not because they want the other sex finally. Because of the 10+ friends I know with 3 (where the first two are the same sex), only 1 got the opposite.

Anonymous wrote:The three kids is what really blows my mind. I am in Chicago, and the professionals that wanna live in the city routinely stop at two kids.

I wonder if it’s a case that they are having the third to finally get a much wanted boy or girl.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole post by the NYC lawyer makes no sense to me. She basically claims that her $850k per year translates into just $21k per month take home pay. Even with self funded retirement it should be close to $40k per month after tax. The poster is either dishonest or dumb.

She didn't say that her her take-home pay was limited to $21k per month, she said her take home draw was $21k per month. A significant portion (depending on the firm, the majority of her compensation) is made through partner distributions, which may be paid in sums throughout the year, or, in some cases, entirely in the following calendar year.

I'm not saying she's right - it's tough to sympathize with someone making close to $900k each year. But when you call someone "dishonest or dumb" without either reading carefully or understanding the compensation schedule and structure she's talking about, you out yourself as being the dumb one.

tl;dr - you're an idiot.

PP here- I understand the distinction, now that it's explained. But I am not a partner at a law firm, and didn't understand the distinction between the original stated "$21k/month draw" and "$21k/month take home pay", because it wasn't further explained in the original post. I think it's pretty reasonable for someone not in that world to read "$21k draw" and think that means "$21k/month take home pay". I don't think many people understand the nuances of how law firm partnership finances works, unless they are in that world, and it's a pretty big leap to think an average person would be able to distinguish between "draw" and "take home pay" that clearly.

As stated above, for many law firm partners more than half of their comp comes much later. So maybe starting in August for the prior year. At my old firm the payment say for 2024 would start in August 2025 and continue to February 2026. All you get in the meantime is your monthly draw. From your draw is medical (which is the employer and the employee payments so aboyt 4k a month; 401k; other retirement; interest on capital loan; buy in. So 21k draw could be 11k.

For the PP that said you do not have to put retirement in -- that is dumb. But in any event at many firms a portion is not a choice. You are required to contribute to the defined benefit plan -- no opt out.

Once you have been a partner for a while you do have that extra money coming in from August to February. But that amount can vary widely. At the same level at my firm (same number of shares) I have collected as little as 150k in those payments and as much as 700k. Also your shares can be cut so the next year could be less and the draw less (could go up as well).

No one should cry for biglaw partners. But it is hard to plan for and in bad years is a mess. It works out in the end by the journey can be rough. Part of what you get all the money for.

so the OP is dumb or what? In short order she will have much more than $21k/month to spend. she has a short-term cash flow issue yet she wants to whine about being poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should have bought a small condo in Manhattan or Brooklyn before becoming partner or having kids. If she's a second year partner at a top firm (I'm a little thrown by her saying it's "Vault 50" -- I thought only law students cared about Vault rankings? Partners look at AmLaw which ranks by revenues and profits per partner), she's likely about 12 years into her legal career. What has she been doing? Especially if she's married, they could have bought a one bedroom years ago, and since it's NYC, it would have appreciated. Plus they'd have the equity. Then they'd be in the position to rent it out or sell it to move up the ladder.

She also should understand that early partnerhood can be a weirdly cash poor (very relatively) existence. Why is this a surprise to her? I never understand when young partners are surprised or frustrated by this. It's true for everyone except those with family money or other revenue streams (like rental income from the condo you bought as a fifth year associate).

And yes, the fact that they are on their third kid before sorting this out is monumentally stupid. Most NYC lawyers I know have one or two kids, max, because that's what keeps private school a manageable option and allows you to live in smaller but nicer homes, closer in. The ones a know with more kids moved to the suburbs years ago and mostly have SAHPs or family nearby.

A couple of things wrong with this.

I doubt she had the ability to buy a place --- probably student loans and the like.

I would not attack people for their choices on kids. Who knows if it was even a choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole post by the NYC lawyer makes no sense to me. She basically claims that her $850k per year translates into just $21k per month take home pay. Even with self funded retirement it should be close to $40k per month after tax. The poster is either dishonest or dumb.

She didn't say that her her take-home pay was limited to $21k per month, she said her take home draw was $21k per month. A significant portion (depending on the firm, the majority of her compensation) is made through partner distributions, which may be paid in sums throughout the year, or, in some cases, entirely in the following calendar year.

I'm not saying she's right - it's tough to sympathize with someone making close to $900k each year. But when you call someone "dishonest or dumb" without either reading carefully or understanding the compensation schedule and structure she's talking about, you out yourself as being the dumb one.

tl;dr - you're an idiot.

Does she or does she not have a much bigger annual take home income than $21k/month would suggest?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole post by the NYC lawyer makes no sense to me. She basically claims that her $850k per year translates into just $21k per month take home pay. Even with self funded retirement it should be close to $40k per month after tax. The poster is either dishonest or dumb.

She didn't say that her her take-home pay was limited to $21k per month, she said her take home draw was $21k per month. A significant portion (depending on the firm, the majority of her compensation) is made through partner distributions, which may be paid in sums throughout the year, or, in some cases, entirely in the following calendar year.

I'm not saying she's right - it's tough to sympathize with someone making close to $900k each year. But when you call someone "dishonest or dumb" without either reading carefully or understanding the compensation schedule and structure she's talking about, you out yourself as being the dumb one.

tl;dr - you're an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with this? Maybe I don’t understand the commute times.

https://www.redfin.com/NY/Larchmont/7-Gerlach-Pl-10538/home/20111204

the Reddit OP is an entitled whiner, that’s what. she is conveniently omitting a chunk of her annual income because it’s not part of her monthly draw (boo hoo) and thinks she is entitled to a mansion. She also turns up her nose at the Brooklyn schools where she could afford to buy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should have bought a small condo in Manhattan or Brooklyn before becoming partner or having kids. If she's a second year partner at a top firm (I'm a little thrown by her saying it's "Vault 50" -- I thought only law students cared about Vault rankings? Partners look at AmLaw which ranks by revenues and profits per partner), she's likely about 12 years into her legal career. What has she been doing? Especially if she's married, they could have bought a one bedroom years ago, and since it's NYC, it would have appreciated. Plus they'd have the equity. Then they'd be in the position to rent it out or sell it to move up the ladder.

She also should understand that early partnerhood can be a weirdly cash poor (very relatively) existence. Why is this a surprise to her? I never understand when young partners are surprised or frustrated by this. It's true for everyone except those with family money or other revenue streams (like rental income from the condo you bought as a fifth year associate).

And yes, the fact that they are on their third kid before sorting this out is monumentally stupid. Most NYC lawyers I know have one or two kids, max, because that's what keeps private school a manageable option and allows you to live in smaller but nicer homes, closer in. The ones a know with more kids moved to the suburbs years ago and mostly have SAHPs or family nearby.

A couple of things wrong with this.

I doubt she had the ability to buy a place --- probably student loans and the like.

I would not attack people for their choices on kids. Who knows if it was even a choice.