Law School Discussion

The 'this LSD member is just an arrogant jerk ' thread

SCgrad

Re: The 'this LSD member is just an arrogant jerk ' thread
« Reply #170 on: April 12, 2006, 02:07:12 AM »
hey norcaldude, next time you see your shadow, try not to piss your pants.  you sat around and thought about the "worst case scenario"?  What kind of chicken *&^% are you?  Anyway, that is your right and I wouldn't say anything about it, but just cause you won't take a chance (you're a virgin, aren't you?) doesn't mean you should come on this board and spew that weak-ass bull to others.  grow a pair, buddy.

likewise

  • ****
  • 1051
    • View Profile
Re: The 'this LSD member is just an arrogant jerk ' thread
« Reply #171 on: April 12, 2006, 06:14:47 AM »
hey norcaldude, next time you see your shadow, try not to piss your pants.  you sat around and thought about the "worst case scenario"?  What kind of chicken sh*t are you?  Anyway, that is your right and I wouldn't say anything about it, but just cause you won't take a chance (you're a virgin, aren't you?) doesn't mean you should come on this board and spew that weak-ass bull to others.  grow a pair, buddy.

TITCR.  You were able to put it so much more eloquently than I.   ;)

Re: The 'this LSD member is just an arrogant jerk ' thread
« Reply #172 on: April 12, 2006, 06:41:55 AM »
oh norcaldude, you make this thread fun.

ty.  if this law school thing doesn't pan out next year, I'll probably end up at UChicago with like-minded future economists.  another libertarian economist in an ivory tower somewhere or other.  (yes, I do have the econ grades to get in  ;D)


norcaldude, I don't know where you went to undergrad or anything, but are you saying that your expected salary as a first year lawyer from a low T1 school is less than what YOU PERSONALLY will be making 1st year out of undergrad? Even counting 3 years of raises (which you haven't gotten yet since you're still in school, and can't accurately predict) I imagine you'd be making more as a first year lawyer.  Also, your statement that 60K a year is "barely a living wage" in norcal really shows your inexperience in living in the real world. I live in a killer (although small) apartment at a coveted location in downtown SF, making 45k a year, and I pay rent, eat and drink out every day, have a car, a gym membership, and a 401k. Perhaps you just don't have the experience to make some of these statements, because you seem to be pulling them out of your ass.

if I were to finish at median in law school, as I finished in undergrad, in today's salary range I have a similar or higher salary out of ug than I world from a T1 as a lawyer, yes.  if you consider loans for law school, even amortized over 30 yrs, then hands down I'll be making more now.  as you move up the class, so does your salary, of course.  assuming I finished even in the 21%, I'd be making around $90k as a lawyer, minus loans.  Which is still less than the median out of my major I'd presume, for three years WE.  Remember, a law degree from a low T1 is terminal...

$63k is off the HUD website as the ceiling for qualifying for HOUSING ASSISTANCE (i.e. just enough to live off), feel free to double-check yourself.  see here: low income is $63350 in the city.

I was making $45k annualized as an intern, although without the 401k and health you probably have, but still.  I'm actually considering taking a pre-PhD job that pays a little less.  I really don't see how I can afford to live off that unless I live at home, or live paycheck to paycheck.

Hey buddy -- I work in real estate, the HUD celings do not represent what amount is the bare min. necessary to survive in a city/location.  Because the celing is set at 63k, it does not mean that 63k = poor in a particular community.

Anybody?








Also, thank goodness you can go play with "like-minded" libertarian economists and then set out to earn as much money as possible.  Man, I'm just sad this is only an internet board and we can't be  "real" friends.

Re: The 'this LSD member is just an arrogant jerk ' thread
« Reply #173 on: April 12, 2006, 06:45:17 AM »
i'm obviously in the minority (at least of people posting) but i never really got what was so terrible about norcaldude's posts. i don't remember him sounding all that abrasive and rather thought he had some good if not completely accurate/true points to make. a lot of people do think that the economic cost-benefits analysis is the only way to plan your career, and if you want to look at law purely for the salary, keeping in mind the opportunity cost of going to law school (not insignificant) and average salary prospects for a particular school is pretty important.. or maybe i was reading the threads in a brain-dead fashion, missing all the incredibly assholish parts of norcaldude's posts.

Re: The 'this LSD member is just an arrogant jerk ' thread
« Reply #174 on: April 12, 2006, 06:53:35 AM »
i'm obviously in the minority (at least of people posting) but i never really got what was so terrible about norcaldude's posts. i don't remember him sounding all that abrasive and rather thought he had some good if not completely accurate/true points to make. a lot of people do think that the economic cost-benefits analysis is the only way to plan your career, and if you want to look at law purely for the salary, keeping in mind the opportunity cost of going to law school (not insignificant) and average salary prospects for a particular school is pretty important.. or maybe i was reading the threads in a brain-dead fashion, missing all the incredibly assholish parts of norcaldude's posts.


I'm not worried about abrasive, and I do find norcaldude honest about what he's looking for.  Openness is good.  That said, I disagree strongly with the cost-benefits, salary-only, what's-in-it-for-me viewpoint.  And it scares me.

Re: The 'this LSD member is just an arrogant jerk ' thread
« Reply #175 on: April 12, 2006, 07:31:09 AM »
Thanks, kevdog.

I really meant more, "Anybody see a problem with the self-lauded economist not understanding what HUD figures mean?"


...but I'm also ignorant and have now learned a little more.  :)

cyberrev

Re: The 'this LSD member is just an arrogant jerk ' thread
« Reply #176 on: April 12, 2006, 07:40:54 AM »
I wanted to add a disclaimer -- I was off on the acronym -- it actually stands for Federal Housing Agency.  My apologies, I've been at work since 8:00 am which is a full hour earlier than normal and I'm still waking up.  Their first time homebuyer program is a common way for people to get up and running, however, and typically follows the above regulations/stips.


gasp!  how dare you be wrong!  curses upon your house

JaimeNina

Re: The 'this LSD member is just an arrogant jerk ' thread
« Reply #177 on: April 12, 2006, 09:26:49 AM »
No matter what the HUD #s are, I find it completely ludacris that norcaldude thinks that you need to make $63K to not be poor in SF. Like I said before, I make 45K in SF (and before that, I made 36K and 42K), and I am living a livestyle much more pimpin' than I thought I would 2 years out of college with a history degree.  On another thread, Norcaldude is totally surprised that on my "not evern enough to get by" salary I managed to spend $1,500 on consulting services for law school.  i think that he may have been staring at econ books for too long and should maybe instead look at his own bank balance and learn how to make a livable budget.

norcaldude

Re: The 'this LSD member is just an arrogant jerk ' thread
« Reply #178 on: April 12, 2006, 12:00:13 PM »
I'm not surprised, and I'm glad it worked out for you.  Had you not gotten in to a T14 school, the relative cost of your "pimpin" lifestyle would have caught up with you eventually.

after tax, $63k --> $63k * .6 (taxes) = $38k.

$38k - 20% pretax in various savings (reasonable for 20s) = $25.5k
$25.5k - $1300 mo total housing expenses = $10k.

$10k - [food + necessary incidentals (cell phone, car insurance, health ins., etc)] = $3-4k

I don't see how you could be pimping off around $5-6k (all savings won't be taxed, etc), and that's what you have left for life on $63k.  $63k is enough to get by, as I said.  You could forseeably get by on a bit less, mid-$50s if you're frugal.  $45k, however, is not, unless you're literally living paycheck to paycheck with nothing left.

--------------------------------------------------------

ibroadrunr: please note, the branch of economics I subscribe to calls for maximizing lifetime income or utility, since they should lead to the same result.  which is the only way I could consider a $40k gov't job and a $70k private sector one in the same breath.

---------------------------------------------------------

I know what the HUD figures mean.  They are what it takes to get by.  Whether your savings come in the form of barely making mortgage payments, or stashing money away in the bank notwithstanding  ::).

likewise

  • ****
  • 1051
    • View Profile
Re: The 'this LSD member is just an arrogant jerk ' thread
« Reply #179 on: April 12, 2006, 12:24:48 PM »
I'm not surprised, and I'm glad it worked out for you.  Had you not gotten in to a T14 school, the relative cost of your "pimpin" lifestyle would have caught up with you eventually.

after tax, $63k --> $63k * .6 (taxes) = $38k.

$38k - 20% pretax in various savings (reasonable for 20s) = $25.5k
$25.5k - $1300 mo total housing expenses = $10k.

$10k - [food + necessary incidentals (cell phone, car insurance, health ins., etc)] = $3-4k

I don't see how you could be pimping off around $5-6k (all savings won't be taxed, etc), and that's what you have left for life on $63k.  $63k is enough to get by, as I said.  You could forseeably get by on a bit less, mid-$50s if you're frugal.  $45k, however, is not, unless you're literally living paycheck to paycheck with nothing left.

--------------------------------------------------------

ibroadrunr: please note, the branch of economics I subscribe to calls for maximizing lifetime income or utility, since they should lead to the same result.  which is the only way I could consider a $40k gov't job and a $70k private sector one in the same breath.

---------------------------------------------------------

I know what the HUD figures mean.  They are what it takes to get by.  Whether your savings come in the form of barely making mortgage payments, or stashing money away in the bank notwithstanding  ::).

Since when does someone in their 20s making 50 to 70K pay 40% in taxes and save 20% of their income, man?

I'll try a different set of figures on you:

after tax, $63K --> $63K * 73% (taxes) = $46K.

$46K - 5% pretax in various savings (MORE reasonable for 20s) = $43K
$43K - $1.3K mo total housing expenses = $27K

Monthly Expenses:

Cell $75
Car Ins $125
Food $300
Eating Out $200
Car Payment $275
--------------------
ca. $1K

Now we're down to $13K, and I've added a car payment.  IFF my health insurance is not covered by my employer, I'd be down to $9K.