Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Why don't more associates push for geography-specific raises? Most associates live in cities with ungodly cost-of-living expenses. Why would they want to subsidize the more luxurious lifestyles of associates in cheaper cities? Partners should be on board, because it could save them money.
Interesting. At my firm, and as I understand to be true of other firms as well, the NY office is supported by work generated outside of NY. I agree with your statement, though, and I'm trying to understand why my firm chooses to subsidize the lifestyles of our lawyers in NY. In any event, we're all glad that the associates in the non-NY offices are treated equally to those in the NY office, since we are working on and generating the deals that pay the bills.
I mean, you're already effectively earning more than those in NYC.
And why does this matter if non-NYC lawyers are just as if not more profitable? Are you saying firms should be treating non-NYC offices as cash cows? Or the other way around, that non-NYC lawyers deserve to be paid effectively more than NYC lawyers because they generate a bunch of cash?
That's great that they're so profitable, really, but I don't think that's the most important factor in setting salaries. It seems like all the recent salary increases have started with NYC firms having trouble retaining bodies, and everyone else just follows along in other cities out of habit. What do you think would happen if, say, Houston stayed at $180k? Would attorneys really leave for NYC?
No, they wouldn't leave for NYC. But they might not start there in the first place. To some extent this is directed at feckless law students. On average, it takes a pretty sweet deal to get some hot shot student away from NYC/DC/etc. and over to a smaller market, so the least they can do is pay the same and argue that the cheaper cost of living more than makes up for not being in NYC. Yes this is an over generalization, but you get the point.
I disagree that this was about NYC having trouble retaining bodies
relative to other cities. I think NYC firms have seen a surge in profitability, and given that in house jobs are booming right now they want to retain their associates for a bit longer. And they did so by sweetening the deal. Milbank didn't move because they were concerned their associates would go to Texas. They moved because they could, wanted extra help, and wanted to make a big name for themselves in the process.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "I don't think that's the most important factor in setting salaries." What's more important? We're talking about a market here. Law firms are going to raise to the point that they think they need to in order to get and retain the help they want. Just because it's flat across the board doesn't mean that there's something wrong going on here. If firms in Texas/Boston/Seattle/Denver/etc. felt that they could get by without raising, they wouldn't raise.
Let's put it this way. I work in Boston, which has matched. I would never move to anywhere other than maybe NYC/DC on my own without some extra incentive. But, let's say Hartford, CT or Worcester, MA had law firms that were offering $190k (or close to it) for first years. I'd give that a serious thought! I would need that extra effective comp in order to pull me away from where I want to be. So if Hartford and Worcester start feeling like they aren't getting the help they need, they may try raising salaries to lure people like me away from Boston. But this isn't the whole picture.
Let's add another layer to this. I imagine that lawyers in Hartford and Worcester aren't nearly as profitable as those in NYC/DC or even BOS. BUT, suppose they were, then it would be really easy for firms in Hartford and Worcester to raise, right? Hence why places like Texas have absolutely no problem matching NYC salaries. They want to draw people away from NYC and have the profitability to do so. That's why we have been pointing out that the Texas associates are just as profitable. It's one of the two factors that allows (and pushes) the firms to raise despite a different COL.