People who like Biglaw Forum

[smokeylarue]

Fuck you money is having enough saved where you can live off the safe withdrawl rate from your investments without needing a job (I.e. Where the principal balance does not decrease). Some people say the rate is 4% (plus inflation). So I'd need 2million, though that amount varies for other people.

Dude that is not FU money. That is more like minimum needed to survive.

A 4% return—which is conservative—is $80k a year, with no supplemental income from something you might actually like, without ever touching the principal.

If you “need” $80k a year to “survive” despite having no job-related constraints on where to live, you’re the kind of person who’s bound to keep working in the vain hope that the next financial milestone will finally lift you from your misery. But it never will. So congrats on making service partner.

Life is not that linear man. Sure 80k a year is plenty for a single person (though I wouldn't say its FU money) on average. But there will be many years you may spend more than that. What if your wife doesn't work. 80k for two people isn't that comfortable. If you have kids, even worse for you. You're going to buy a house someday. You're going to buy some cars over your lifetime. You going to pay for your kids' colleges? Do you have any interest in leaving an inheritance? $2M at age 65 is plenty enough to retire. $2M at age 45? That can go fast.

[Hikikomorist]

minimum financial escape velocity is usually cited at between $7.5-10 mil in assets.

Yeah, $10 million is the figure that immediately sprang to mind.

[PeanutsNJam]

Fuck you money is having enough saved where you can live off the safe withdrawl rate from your investments without needing a job (I.e. Where the principal balance does not decrease). Some people say the rate is 4% (plus inflation). So I'd need 2million, though that amount varies for other people.

Dude that is not FU money. That is more like minimum needed to survive.

A 4% return—which is conservative—is $80k a year, with no supplemental income from something you might actually like, without ever touching the principal.

If you “need” $80k a year to “survive” despite having no job-related constraints on where to live, you’re the kind of person who’s bound to keep working in the vain hope that the next financial milestone will finally lift you from your misery. But it never will. So congrats on making service partner.

Life is not that linear man. Sure 80k a year is plenty for a single person (though I wouldn't say its FU money) on average. But there will be many years you may spend more than that. What if your wife doesn't work. 80k for two people isn't that comfortable. If you have kids, even worse for you. You're going to buy a house someday. You're going to buy some cars over your lifetime. You going to pay for your kids' colleges? Do you have any interest in leaving an inheritance? $2M at age 65 is plenty enough to retire. $2M at age 45? That can go fast.

Believe it or not, families that make less than 80k/year manage to buy a house, own a car, and send their kids to college. Presumably, while saving up your 2M, you will have already bought a house or a car. Most people don't wait until they're 45 to stop renting.

The 80k you get will be taxed at the capital gain rate, which is much more generous.

Additionally, that 80k is what you get for doing literally nothing. Presumably, after quitting law, you'll go do something chill, but still have an income. I couldn't imagine not working at all for the rest of my life. You could spend the rest of your life selling crafts on etsy.

Also, since you're not location locked, you can move to a low CoL area, and that 80k will go much further.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Fuck you money is having enough saved where you can live off the safe withdrawl rate from your investments without needing a job (I.e. Where the principal balance does not decrease). Some people say the rate is 4% (plus inflation). So I'd need 2million, though that amount varies for other people.

Dude that is not FU money. That is more like minimum needed to survive.

A 4% return—which is conservative—is $80k a year, with no supplemental income from something you might actually like, without ever touching the principal.

If you “need” $80k a year to “survive” despite having no job-related constraints on where to live, you’re the kind of person who’s bound to keep working in the vain hope that the next financial milestone will finally lift you from your misery. But it never will. So congrats on making service partner.

Life is not that linear man. Sure 80k a year is plenty for a single person (though I wouldn't say its FU money) on average. But there will be many years you may spend more than that. What if your wife doesn't work. 80k for two people isn't that comfortable. If you have kids, even worse for you. You're going to buy a house someday. You're going to buy some cars over your lifetime. You going to pay for your kids' colleges? Do you have any interest in leaving an inheritance? $2M at age 65 is plenty enough to retire. $2M at age 45? That can go fast.

Believe it or not, families that make less than 80k/year manage to buy a house, own a car, and send their kids to college. Presumably, while saving up your 2M, you will have already bought a house or a car. Most people don't wait until they're 45 to stop renting.

The 80k you get will be taxed at the capital gain rate, which is much more generous.

Additionally, that 80k is what you get for doing literally nothing. Presumably, after quitting law, you'll go do something chill, but still have an income. I couldn't imagine not working at all for the rest of my life. You could spend the rest of your life selling crafts on etsy.

Also, since you're not location locked, you can move to a low CoL area, and that 80k will go much further.

People aren’t location locked solely because of jobs. Family, interests, hobbies, weather, culture, etc. all come into play. Personally, I wouldn’t move out of my high COL area for exactly those above reasons.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

A 4% return—which is conservative—is $80k a year, with no supplemental income from something you might actually like, without ever touching the principal.

If you “need” $80k a year to “survive” despite having no job-related constraints on where to live, you’re the kind of person who’s bound to keep working in the vain hope that the next financial milestone will finally lift you from your misery. But it never will. So congrats on making service partner.

Life is not that linear man. Sure 80k a year is plenty for a single person (though I wouldn't say its FU money) on average. But there will be many years you may spend more than that. What if your wife doesn't work. 80k for two people isn't that comfortable. If you have kids, even worse for you. You're going to buy a house someday. You're going to buy some cars over your lifetime. You going to pay for your kids' colleges? Do you have any interest in leaving an inheritance? $2M at age 65 is plenty enough to retire. $2M at age 45? That can go fast.

Even WELL into the 99th percentile of global wealth, with no need to ever work, and with the freedom to live anywhere in the world, you can’t figure out how to have a house, car, a stay-at-home wife, and a couple kids with a decent education.

And you treat your struggle to accomplish these things that millions of others are able to do and nonetheless remain satisfied with their lives as a sign that you’re on some sort of higher echelon instead of the crippling handicap that it is.

Your utter inability to ask what satisfaction you might actually get after 40 years on the socioeconomic treadmill, with the threshold for “comfort” constantly rising and “true success” always barely out of reach like some fucked-up modern-day Tantalus, would be hilarious if it weren’t the actual thought process of the large majority of my firm’s partners and senior associates.

[smokeylarue]

A 4% return—which is conservative—is $80k a year, with no supplemental income from something you might actually like, without ever touching the principal.

If you “need” $80k a year to “survive” despite having no job-related constraints on where to live, you’re the kind of person who’s bound to keep working in the vain hope that the next financial milestone will finally lift you from your misery. But it never will. So congrats on making service partner.

Life is not that linear man. Sure 80k a year is plenty for a single person (though I wouldn't say its FU money) on average. But there will be many years you may spend more than that. What if your wife doesn't work. 80k for two people isn't that comfortable. If you have kids, even worse for you. You're going to buy a house someday. You're going to buy some cars over your lifetime. You going to pay for your kids' colleges? Do you have any interest in leaving an inheritance? $2M at age 65 is plenty enough to retire. $2M at age 45? That can go fast.

Even WELL into the 99th percentile of global wealth, with no need to ever work, and with the freedom to live anywhere in the world, you can’t figure out how to have a house, car, a stay-at-home wife, and a couple kids with a decent education.

And you treat your struggle to accomplish these things that millions of others are able to do and nonetheless remain satisfied with their lives as a sign that you’re on some sort of higher echelon instead of the crippling handicap that it is.

Your utter inability to ask what satisfaction you might actually get after 40 years on the socioeconomic treadmill, with the threshold for “comfort” constantly rising and “true success” always barely out of reach like some fucked-up modern-day Tantalus, would be hilarious if it weren’t the actual thought process of the large majority of my firm’s partners and senior associates.

Uhh... not sure if you're trolling. I think I'm getting trolled here. Or someone just had a small mental breakdown..

[PeanutsNJam]

People aren’t location locked solely because of jobs. Family, interests, hobbies, weather, culture, etc. all come into play. Personally, I wouldn’t move out of my high COL area for exactly those above reasons.

Yes but a job is far more restrictive than the other factors. If you work in Midtown, if you don't want a hellish commute, you have to at least be in Jersey City or Brooklyn. But if you don't work in Midtown, but want to stay in NYC for some reason, you're free to find a great place further out east in Queens or further west into Jersey or something. That's just one example of increased mobility and access to lower CoL areas. Chicago folks can find a house in the suburbs. SF people can move to the suburbs as well. Sure, it might take you an hour to get to the city, but when you don't have to make that trip twice a day, it's not so bad.

[TatteredDignity]

A 4% return—which is conservative—is $80k a year, with no supplemental income from something you might actually like, without ever touching the principal.

If you “need” $80k a year to “survive” despite having no job-related constraints on where to live, you’re the kind of person who’s bound to keep working in the vain hope that the next financial milestone will finally lift you from your misery. But it never will. So congrats on making service partner.

Life is not that linear man. Sure 80k a year is plenty for a single person (though I wouldn't say its FU money) on average. But there will be many years you may spend more than that. What if your wife doesn't work. 80k for two people isn't that comfortable. If you have kids, even worse for you. You're going to buy a house someday. You're going to buy some cars over your lifetime. You going to pay for your kids' colleges? Do you have any interest in leaving an inheritance? $2M at age 65 is plenty enough to retire. $2M at age 45? That can go fast.

Even WELL into the 99th percentile of global wealth, with no need to ever work, and with the freedom to live anywhere in the world, you can’t figure out how to have a house, car, a stay-at-home wife, and a couple kids with a decent education.

And you treat your struggle to accomplish these things that millions of others are able to do and nonetheless remain satisfied with their lives as a sign that you’re on some sort of higher echelon instead of the crippling handicap that it is.

Your utter inability to ask what satisfaction you might actually get after 40 years on the socioeconomic treadmill, with the threshold for “comfort” constantly rising and “true success” always barely out of reach like some fucked-up modern-day Tantalus, would be hilarious if it weren’t the actual thought process of the large majority of my firm’s partners and senior associates.

Uhh... not sure if you're trolling. I think I'm getting trolled here. Or someone just had a small mental breakdown..

He’s serious and he’s right.

[cdotson2]

Uhh... not sure if you're trolling. I think I'm getting trolled here. Or someone just had a small mental breakdown..

you're not getting trolled. it is objectively ridiculous to think that 80k a year is barely surviving. My family, in which I am 1 of 4 kids, lived on a single income of around 40,000 pretty comfortably. Admittedly it is a low cost of living area, but still, if you think you can't survive on 80k a year you are living in an extreme bubble.

[pancakes3]

if i manage to accumulate 2 mill in liquid assets, i'm not going to quit my job and just survive but that's just me. i think it's certainly enough to live off, and not in poverty either, but it kind of misses the point of being financially independent - to enjoy yourself. but that largely is dependent on the beholder.

[drive4showLSAT4dough]

Idk if I like biglaw yet, prob not. But I like this thread.

[Yugihoe]

Golden handcuffs everywhere...

[smokeylarue]

Uhh... not sure if you're trolling. I think I'm getting trolled here. Or someone just had a small mental breakdown..

you're not getting trolled. it is objectively ridiculous to think that 80k a year is barely surviving. My family, in which I am 1 of 4 kids, lived on a single income of around 40,000 pretty comfortably. Admittedly it is a low cost of living area, but still, if you think you can't survive on 80k a year you are living in an extreme bubble.

LOL you cannot be serious. 40k for a family of 6 is close to poverty level. Honestly I have no clue where you lived that it provided a comfortable life, but most people here have no desire to live in North fuckin dakota.

[Mr. Peanutbutter]

lol omg this is the hurr durr associate fight we all should have known this thread would devolve to

[Mr. Blackacre]

Uhh... not sure if you're trolling. I think I'm getting trolled here. Or someone just had a small mental breakdown..

you're not getting trolled. it is objectively ridiculous to think that 80k a year is barely surviving. My family, in which I am 1 of 4 kids, lived on a single income of around 40,000 pretty comfortably. Admittedly it is a low cost of living area, but still, if you think you can't survive on 80k a year you are living in an extreme bubble.

LOL you cannot be serious. 40k for a family of 6 is close to poverty level. Honestly I have no clue where you lived that it provided a comfortable life, but most people here have no desire to live in North fuckin dakota.

Just for some perspective - the federal poverty level this year is 12k. 40k for a family of six is definitely poverty, though with government aids and in a low COL area I can definitely see people make it work. 80k for 1 person, or for 2, or for 4 though, is far from poverty. You have to be a real idiot to think 80k a year is "barely surviving."

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

you're not getting trolled. it is objectively ridiculous to think that 80k a year is barely surviving. My family, in which I am 1 of 4 kids, lived on a single income of around 40,000 pretty comfortably. Admittedly it is a low cost of living area, but still, if you think you can't survive on 80k a year you are living in an extreme bubble.

LOL you cannot be serious. 40k for a family of 6 is close to poverty level. Honestly I have no clue where you lived that it provided a comfortable life, but most people here have no desire to live in North fuckin dakota.

This is the second time in this thread you’ve badly missed the point and sprinted headfirst into exactly what people are criticizing your position for.

A guy tells you that he was perfectly comfortable with far less than the objectively massive amount (percentile-wise) of money you characterized as meager, and you immediately tried to shit on “North fuckin dakota” (where hundreds of thousands of people manage to be happy) and basically imply you’d only be happy in eight cities, and, again, treated this like a badge of honor instead of the debilitating personal failure that it is.

I feel sad whenever I see people like that in the office, responding to Bidder NDA comments at 1 AM like they’ve been doing for 19 years because having $2M at 45 wasn’t enough, desperately hoping that happiness and fulfillment finally comes from the next swanky Tribeca apartment, or some stylish coat, or some new iPhone. They could have 99.9% of what the world has to offer, but the one thing they’ll never be able to buy is enough. But hey, at least you don’t have to have a lower-stress job, meaningful interpersonal relationships, and time to enjoy and cultivate hobbies like the rubes in Fargo. Enjoy your Dom, you desperate soul; you’re gonna need it when they tell you to work at your son’s graduation.

[smokeylarue]

Lol literally no one in this thread said 80k is barely surviving.

[cdotson2]

Uhh... not sure if you're trolling. I think I'm getting trolled here. Or someone just had a small mental breakdown..

you're not getting trolled. it is objectively ridiculous to think that 80k a year is barely surviving. My family, in which I am 1 of 4 kids, lived on a single income of around 40,000 pretty comfortably. Admittedly it is a low cost of living area, but still, if you think you can't survive on 80k a year you are living in an extreme bubble.

LOL you cannot be serious. 40k for a family of 6 is close to poverty level. Honestly I have no clue where you lived that it provided a comfortable life, but most people here have no desire to live in North fuckin dakota.

certain years we were under the poverty level. We lived just outside the metro area of one of the 20 largest cities in the U.S. Yet, we lived in a decent house, and had food for three meals a day everyday, and like 3 cars (all like 10+ years old though). Me and my older brother both went to school on scholarships (two younger are not old enough for college yet). We didn't have cable, we weren't buying new clothes every year or getting crazy gifts every holiday, but you really need perspective. By no means would I qualify my up-bringing as barely surviving.

[cdotson2]

Lol literally no one in this thread said 80k is barely surviving.

That is more like minimum needed to survive.

[Yugihoe]

Rekt.

[smokeylarue]

Lol literally no one in this thread said 80k is barely surviving.

That is more like minimum needed to survive.

Two unrelated posts, nice try

[cdotson2]

Lol literally no one in this thread said 80k is barely surviving.

That is more like minimum needed to survive.

Two unrelated posts, nice try

Fuck you money is having enough saved where you can live off the safe withdrawl rate from your investments without needing a job (I.e. Where the principal balance does not decrease). Some people say the rate is 4% (plus inflation). So I'd need 2million, though that amount varies for other people.

Dude that is not FU money. That is more like minimum needed to survive.

A 4% return—which is conservative—is $80k a year, with no supplemental income from something you might actually like, without ever touching the principal.

If you “need” $80k a year to “survive” despite having no job-related constraints on where to live, you’re the kind of person who’s bound to keep working in the vain hope that the next financial milestone will finally lift you from your misery. But it never will. So congrats on making service partner.

Life is not that linear man. Sure 80k a year is plenty for a single person (though I wouldn't say its FU money) on average. But there will be many years you may spend more than that. What if your wife doesn't work. 80k for two people isn't that comfortable. If you have kids, even worse for you. You're going to buy a house someday. You're going to buy some cars over your lifetime. You going to pay for your kids' colleges? Do you have any interest in leaving an inheritance? $2M at age 65 is plenty enough to retire. $2M at age 45? That can go fast.

you're right, my bad. You were saying that 2 million is barely enough to survive. so much better.

[smokeylarue]

You literally just have to read: "Sure 80k a year is plenty for a single person"

[Mr. Peanutbutter]

Hey you, yeah you, the one with a full head of hair and dreams studying for the lsat instead of drinking with your friends: THIS IS THE GHOST OF PEDANTS FUTURE!

[lagamemnon]

Fuck you money is having enough saved where you can live off the safe withdrawl rate from your investments without needing a job (I.e. Where the principal balance does not decrease). Some people say the rate is 4% (plus inflation). So I'd need 2million, though that amount varies for other people.

Dude that is not FU money. That is more like minimum needed to survive.

A 4% return—which is conservative—is $80k a year, with no supplemental income from something you might actually like, without ever touching the principal.

If you “need” $80k a year to “survive” despite having no job-related constraints on where to live, you’re the kind of person who’s bound to keep working in the vain hope that the next financial milestone will finally lift you from your misery. But it never will. So congrats on making service partner.

amen