2023 Big Law Raises Forum

[LittleRedCorvette]

So I still think everyone who predicted there wouldn't be a raise this year was still correct in their prediction even though they got it wrong in the end (i.e., it would be like predicting a dice roll will be five or less—that in hindsight is still the correct prediction even though a six got rolled). i still think it would be nuts for a raise, to the extent that there are higher profits and deal work picking up and retention issues I think this will be reflected in another special bonus because those are much more easily taken away so firms are more happy to give them. Absolutely hope I'm wrong again though and Milbank continues its killing spree. I, for one, will keep putting them number one on these stupid surveys.

How are they "correct in their prediction" again?

[Anonymous User]

So I still think everyone who predicted there wouldn't be a raise this year was still correct in their prediction even though they got it wrong in the end (i.e., it would be like predicting a dice roll will be five or less—that in hindsight is still the correct prediction even though a six got rolled). i still think it would be nuts for a raise, to the extent that there are higher profits and deal work picking up and retention issues I think this will be reflected in another special bonus because those are much more easily taken away so firms are more happy to give them. Absolutely hope I'm wrong again though and Milbank continues its killing spree. I, for one, will keep putting them number one on these stupid surveys.

How are they "correct in their prediction" again?

Probably in the sense that a weatherman who predicts a 90% chance of sunshine and then it rains may have still been technically correct.

This makes me think of a law school classmate who came into class soaked and screaming "does this look a 30% chance of rain!?" Yes, it does.

[Anonymous User]

So I still think everyone who predicted there wouldn't be a raise this year was still correct in their prediction even though they got it wrong in the end (i.e., it would be like predicting a dice roll will be five or less—that in hindsight is still the correct prediction even though a six got rolled). i still think it would be nuts for a raise, to the extent that there are higher profits and deal work picking up and retention issues I think this will be reflected in another special bonus because those are much more easily taken away so firms are more happy to give them. Absolutely hope I'm wrong again though and Milbank continues its killing spree. I, for one, will keep putting them number one on these stupid surveys.

How are they "correct in their prediction" again?

I'll assume this question is in good faith. When we operate in life we make decisions or predictions. Sometimes those predictions do not materialize ex post, but ex ante it was the right prediction to make. This is baseline game theory. If I choose to stay when I have a 16 and the dealer is showing 6 and the dealer flips over the card to show an ace, I still made the correct decision ex ante to stay.

Humans often incorrectly judge the validity of their decisions based on results and not on what the correct decision was given the facts they had at the time.

Anyways, this is my long-winded incredibly annoying way of saying everyone who said there wouldn't be raises were correct in thinking that. Milbank just decided to go for it.

[LittleRedCorvette]

So I still think everyone who predicted there wouldn't be a raise this year was still correct in their prediction even though they got it wrong in the end (i.e., it would be like predicting a dice roll will be five or less—that in hindsight is still the correct prediction even though a six got rolled). i still think it would be nuts for a raise, to the extent that there are higher profits and deal work picking up and retention issues I think this will be reflected in another special bonus because those are much more easily taken away so firms are more happy to give them. Absolutely hope I'm wrong again though and Milbank continues its killing spree. I, for one, will keep putting them number one on these stupid surveys.

How are they "correct in their prediction" again?

I'll assume this question is in good faith. When we operate in life we make decisions or predictions. Sometimes those predictions do not materialize ex post, but ex ante it was the right prediction to make. This is baseline game theory. If I choose to stay when I have a 16 and the dealer is showing 6 and the dealer flips over the card to show an ace, I still made the correct decision ex ante to stay.

Humans often incorrectly judge the validity of their decisions based on results and not on what the correct decision was given the facts they had at the time.

Anyways, this is my long-winded incredibly annoying way of saying everyone who said there wouldn't be raises were correct in thinking that. Milbank just decided to go for it.

You are correct that it was annoying. Your examples are too simple -- there are many variables that go into whether there will be raises or not, it isn't "stay on 16 when the dealer shows 6."

And in any event, if the outcome isn't as predicted, in real life, people don't say "oh well his prediction was accurate." And since some people corrected predicted (the real kind, not this "baseline game theory" version), how do you describe their prediction? "Incorrectly predicted even though they were correct?" Goofy.

[Anonymous User]

So I still think everyone who predicted there wouldn't be a raise this year was still correct in their prediction even though they got it wrong in the end (i.e., it would be like predicting a dice roll will be five or less—that in hindsight is still the correct prediction even though a six got rolled). i still think it would be nuts for a raise, to the extent that there are higher profits and deal work picking up and retention issues I think this will be reflected in another special bonus because those are much more easily taken away so firms are more happy to give them. Absolutely hope I'm wrong again though and Milbank continues its killing spree. I, for one, will keep putting them number one on these stupid surveys.

How are they "correct in their prediction" again?

I'll assume this question is in good faith. When we operate in life we make decisions or predictions. Sometimes those predictions do not materialize ex post, but ex ante it was the right prediction to make. This is baseline game theory. If I choose to stay when I have a 16 and the dealer is showing 6 and the dealer flips over the card to show an ace, I still made the correct decision ex ante to stay.

Humans often incorrectly judge the validity of their decisions based on results and not on what the correct decision was given the facts they had at the time.

Anyways, this is my long-winded incredibly annoying way of saying everyone who said there wouldn't be raises were correct in thinking that. Milbank just decided to go for it.

You are correct that it was annoying. Your examples are too simple -- there are many variables that go into whether there will be raises or not, it isn't "stay on 16 when the dealer shows 6."

And in any event, if the outcome isn't as predicted, in real life, people don't say "oh well his prediction was accurate." And since some people corrected predicted (the real kind, not this "baseline game theory" version), how do you describe their prediction? "Incorrectly predicted even though they were correct?" Goofy.

Look all I'm saying is that there was no reason for a raise in 2023 and I still don't think there was a reason for it. I am grateful for one. You can't walk into a casino, put it all on 26, get lucky, and then declare you somehow cracked the roulette code.

[LittleRedCorvette]

So I still think everyone who predicted there wouldn't be a raise this year was still correct in their prediction even though they got it wrong in the end (i.e., it would be like predicting a dice roll will be five or less—that in hindsight is still the correct prediction even though a six got rolled). i still think it would be nuts for a raise, to the extent that there are higher profits and deal work picking up and retention issues I think this will be reflected in another special bonus because those are much more easily taken away so firms are more happy to give them. Absolutely hope I'm wrong again though and Milbank continues its killing spree. I, for one, will keep putting them number one on these stupid surveys.

How are they "correct in their prediction" again?

I'll assume this question is in good faith. When we operate in life we make decisions or predictions. Sometimes those predictions do not materialize ex post, but ex ante it was the right prediction to make. This is baseline game theory. If I choose to stay when I have a 16 and the dealer is showing 6 and the dealer flips over the card to show an ace, I still made the correct decision ex ante to stay.

Humans often incorrectly judge the validity of their decisions based on results and not on what the correct decision was given the facts they had at the time.

Anyways, this is my long-winded incredibly annoying way of saying everyone who said there wouldn't be raises were correct in thinking that. Milbank just decided to go for it.

You are correct that it was annoying. Your examples are too simple -- there are many variables that go into whether there will be raises or not, it isn't "stay on 16 when the dealer shows 6."

And in any event, if the outcome isn't as predicted, in real life, people don't say "oh well his prediction was accurate." And since some people corrected predicted (the real kind, not this "baseline game theory" version), how do you describe their prediction? "Incorrectly predicted even though they were correct?" Goofy.

Look all I'm saying is that there was no reason for a raise in 2023 and I still don't think there was a reason for it. I am grateful for one. You can't walk into a casino, put it all on 26, get lucky, and then declare you somehow cracked the roulette code.

Cool very simple example that isn't applicable. There were obviously reasons, as one firm, followed by many, raised salaries. Maybe retention isn't great, maybe it was due to inflation, maybe a few key firms had strong enough years to justify it, maybe there was a marketing aspect that Milbank wanted to flex, maybe the raises aren't that consequential to firms.

Really, predicting raises isn't that crazy -- if any of about 30 different firms raises, all the rest will raise. So, in any given year, absent an insane, market ending recession, it isn't that outlandish that a market-moving firm will raise salaries.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Look all I'm saying is that there was no reason for a raise in 2023 and I still don't think there was a reason for it. I am grateful for one. You can't walk into a casino, put it all on 26, get lucky, and then declare you somehow cracked the roulette code.

Inflation is a sufficient reason.