[tarquin]

(09-24-2012 04:25 PM)highandtight Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 02:50 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

Can you explain why it is necessary for EVERY associate, and even partner, at top law firms to work excessive hours? What would the approach be if someone who, say, got really good grades at a top 10 law school stated in an interview with a prospective firm he was looking for a role with lower hours, and would accept proportionally less pay as a result? Would he be dismissed as a slacker?

I mean, I understand the concept of economies of scale, but hiring three associates to do what two would usually do in an 80 hour week isn't going to make that much difference. Do partners really have that little regard for their and their underlings time and well being that they push everyone literally to the brink? All for the sake of saving a couple of sq feet of extra office space and some other small costs. Or are good lawyers really that rare that there is an excess of work for the available legal minds? It sounds insane to me.

Well my friend, this is something that my coworkers and I constantly bitch about. Rationally, you'd think it would make sense to hire the extra associate, bring weekly hours down, and save money on the very real and quite extensive costs involved in turnover. And there are costs: my firm has lost work from clients due to high turnover, and I'm at a relatively low turnover firm compared to some of the real heavyweights in the city.

The best I can tell you is that yes, many of the partners really do have that little regard for their associates. Maybe not actively; I think a lot of these guys are just busy, focused on client retention and turning over a good work product, and just don't really pay attention to the law firm management issues.

The hiring thing is crazy, too. We're understaffed right now but the bosses will basically only hire people with experience from a peer firm. Stupid policy if you ask me. Entry level hiring is way too low, both at my firm, at all other firms that I know of, and probably in lots of other industries.

As to your interviewing question, I wouldn't recommend it. You may get an uptight interviewer that interprets it as "this guy doesn't want to work hard."

I'm not biglaw, so I can't personally attest to partners treating associates poorly. I've read and heard stories about 30 hour work days, complete with an associate trying to take a quick nap on his office floor getting promptly kicked in the gut for sleeping on the job. I also heard about poor performance reviews for law clerks who couldn't concentrate/function with the small hours of sleep they sometimes had leading to no-offers. It comes with the territory, though.

[bodmon]

for regular guys who don't have some superior status that precedes them i think that the base ingredients for successful playerdom are game, appearance, and time/access. as i believe roosh has said on his blog, a wad of cash alone in your pocket doesn't help much. looking back to my law school years, basically none of the guys had hot babes by virtue of their being prospective lawyers.

the guy who was most regarded as a player, and who is one of my best friends today, is 6'3", handsome, has a chiseled jaw, has broad shoulders and works out regularly and puts a lot of effort into his fashion and grooming (jersey-style, lol). he is of afghan background and looks like this. and he has a great, sociable personality to boot. women liked him regardless of his career potential... it was like it was just an after-the-fact cherry on top.

and then there were two others who i know played the field but whose exploits i know less about. one was a mediocre-looking but tall cerebral guy who i later found out was a regular roosh reader. another was a short stocky guy with a loud, douchey, fratboy personality. my own recent successes, which, funnily, in some ways even surpass those of my afghan friend, stem from my improved personality, fashion, and creeping. cash flow is great, but i think it's much better to work on your fashion, your muscles, your grooming, your humour, your teasing, your storytelling, your confidence, your approach skill, your logistics, etc. game, appearance, and time/access.

[Lemmo]

(09-24-2012 02:50 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 02:17 PM)highandtight Wrote:  

...
I work in a big law firm in NYC. It's definitely got some serious downsides (long hours, at times high stress) but at the end of the day it's really just a job. I have friends in other industries that work long hours for less than half the pay. At the end of the day there's nothing magical about it -- it's just long hours for relatively high pay. I've worked blue collar jobs before this and it's akin to working some serious overtime.
...

Can you explain why it is necessary for EVERY associate, and even partner, at top law firms to work excessive hours? What would the approach be if someone who, say, got really good grades at a top 10 law school stated in an interview with a prospective firm he was looking for a role with lower hours, and would accept proportionally less pay as a result? Would he be dismissed as a slacker?

I mean, I understand the concept of economies of scale, but hiring three associates to do what two would usually do in an 80 hour week isn't going to make that much difference. Do partners really have that little regard for their and their underlings time and well being that they push everyone literally to the brink? All for the sake of saving a couple of sq feet of extra office space and some other small costs. Or are good lawyers really that rare that there is an excess of work for the available legal minds? It sounds insane to me.

Do not mention that you want lower hours if you want the job. Ultimately, a law firm's product is hours. If you are stating up front that you will make less product and therefore less money for the firm than another candidate, you are obviously hurting your chances.

[WestCoast]

The general info on here is extreme and wrong:

1. Most guys on the street have ugly wives because they have no game. They are like any other industry, no game = no hot girls. This is the same in an accounting firm. All this shows is you NEED game to get girls. money doesn't get you them. But that doesn't mean game + money = huge win. It is. game and money is a shit show of bitches.
2. Not "all of them" pay for prostitutes on the side to get the hot ones, that's just jealousy talking. There are a few who do this (again that's the case in any place with a ton of money, Gk admits to paying is he a banker? No)
3. You don't need to flash cash to get bitches. You can ask around on this forum, my own personal pickups? A t-shirt and jeans. 90% of the time. Yes you suit up when you are in a rut and or trying something new as CASH buys you status. That simple.
4. You'd be surprised at which guys on the street get laid, you would never know he works on Wall Street. If you think a smart player is dumb enough to tell a bitch he works on the street you're nuts. Telling a girl you are a doctor lawyer or banker is a MAJOR TURN OFF if done improperly.
5. Anyone who uses bottle service outside of Vegas is wasting their money. "Models and bottles" is a JOKE. Google "bankers versus consultants" it's just a joke! People jump quickly to hate on success. Because they are unsuccessful.
6. If you make it on Wall Street and are still grinding after 2-3 years, you fucked up. You need work game. You should work 25% less than everyone and get paid top tier every year. If not you're losing the "work game"

Again. Game is NEEDED, Money is a MUlTIPLIER, if you have weak game? Your weak ass game is multiplied by your cash. Think about it.

The number one stereotype of rich guys is they are "insecure". He has a Ferrari because he is insecure. He works that high paying job because he is "greedy". Etc etc.

So you can't lose frame for one fucking second with cash!

The more successful you are the BIGGER the magnifying glass is on your life, they want to see a chink in your armor to take you down.

Ask yourself, is this blanket statement "guys in x industry don't have hot girlfriends" be applied to your industry as well? Exclude of course famous people. The answer is guess what? Yes.

[bodmon]

(09-27-2012 12:19 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

4. You'd be surprised at which guys on the street get laid, you would never know he works on Wall Street. If you think a smart player is dumb enough to tell a bitch he works on the street you're nuts. Telling a girl you are a doctor lawyer or banker is a MAJOR TURN OFF if done improperly.

you mean by being all braggy/needy about it? explain, brah

[WestCoast]

As soon as you "brag" you're done. Yes.

Effectively if you're well off you don't need I tell anyone they already know. This is extremely attractive. They can feel it.

He's rich, why isn't he blowing his cash in front of me?
Wow I found out he works at a large hedge fund and why is he takin me to a dive bar?
Wow he can afford to travel and does but why doesn't he tell me about it?
How come he doesn't "act" like he is rich.

The richer and more successful you are the easier it is to stir up jealousy/anger in people. You get through this for a conversation and the girl is yours. It's the biggest show of " I don't give a shit".

I am able to throw cash around but I don't because I hold the cards is the mentality.

At the end of the day you have that lifestyle to offer and you don't give it to "just anyone". Power.

[WestCoast]

(09-24-2012 01:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Athlone, you underestimate how corrupting the biglaw/finance world is. It doesn't matter how strong your will is, it is impossible to go through these institutions without becoming a worse person. It warps everyone, no one is immune.

This is both wrong and insulting to boot.

Athlone if you go into finance its simple, sell the same life style and don't hang out with them beyond work. It's not that hard.

Save 50% of what you make. Never upgrade your lifestyle.

Keep stacking cash, if you're smart you save $40-50K a year. Sell them their own belief system. All you do is "pretend" to upgrade your pad, pretend to upgrade your "lifestyle".

You "kill yourself" during promotion years. And curtail during soft years.

99% of people on the street can't control their emotions. You're better than that.

If you survive 5 years? Get ready to stack 100K annually. Spend your free time practicing game, game when you get lunch. Game when you go to the gym, game at night by yourself at lower end venues in lower dress code areas. Start low, build up.

The morons go to where everyone else is going. Fuck that. Go get that $$$. Game is a hobby unless its actually your job like Roosh/whoever does this shit for a living.

Where there is a will there is a way.

"Most" can't do what you're implying, but "most" also have no game, "most" also are unable to separate work from life and "most" don't apply game to work so they work LESS. Just game the system. It's worth it, even by the time you're 30 money won't really matter all that much.

Sam's a great poster and no doubt a great guy as well, the opinion posted however is based on observations versus experience. If you end up breaking into the street or need help come talk to me. Get in there get $$$ and get out by mid 30's. Many do this.

As a final Wall Street has made me a BETTER person. I have helped family/relatives/friends all because of it. Shit without it, I'd be much worse off. The street will humble you faster than any woman would and in a heartbeat.

[Samseau]

(09-27-2012 02:20 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

Sam's a great poster and no doubt a great guy as well, the opinion posted however is based on observations versus experience.

Not at all, my opinion is based on people who have five times the experience either of us have.

You talk a lot about the game. But you don't win the game. The game wins you.

Quote:

Thousands of lawyers choose to give up a healthy, happy, well-balanced life for a less healthy, less happy life dominated by work. And they do so merely to be able to make seven or eight times the national median income instead of five or six times the national median income. Why? Are lawyers just greedy?

Well, some are, but it is more complicated than that. For one thing, lawyers don't think in these terms. They don't see their lives as crazy. Lawyers don't see any of this. Lawyers don't sit down and think logically about why they are leading the lives they are leading any more than buffalo sit down and think logically about why they are stampeding. That is the primary reason I am writing this Article: I hope that you will sit down and think about the life that you want to lead before you get caught up in the stampede.

More importantly, though, the flaw in my analysis is that it assumes that the reason lawyers push themselves to make so much money is the money itself. In other words, my analysis assumes that the reason lawyers want to earn more money is that they want to spend more money and enjoy the things that money will buy. When put in those terms, giving up 600 hours of life for another $ 40,000 on top of a $ 160,000 salary makes no sense for most lawyers. What you need to understand, though, is that very few lawyers are working extraordinarily long hours because they need the money. They are doing it for a different reason.

Big firm lawyers are, on the whole, a remarkably insecure and competitive group of people. Many of them have spent almost their entire lives competing to win games that other people have set up for them. First they competed to get into a prestigious college. Then they competed for college grades. Then they competed for LSAT scores. Then they competed to get into a prestigious law school. Then they competed for law school grades. Then they competed to make the law review. Then they competed for clerkships. 229 Then they competed to get hired by a big law firm. 230

Now that they're in a big law firm, what's going to happen? Are they going to stop competing? Are they going to stop comparing themselves to others? Of course not. They're going to keep competing--competing to bill more hours, to attract more clients, to win more cases, to do more deals. They're playing a game. And money is how the score is kept in that game.

Why do you suppose sixty year old lawyers with millions of dollars in the bank still bill 2200 hours per year? Why do you suppose lawyers whose children have everything money can buy but who need the time and attention of their parents continue to spend most nights and weekends at the office--while continuing to write out checks to the best child psychologists in town? Why do you suppose one big firm partner I know flew into a rage after learning that his year-end bonus would be only--only--$ 400,000, while the bonus of one of his rivals in the firm would be $ 425,000? Why do you suppose that another lawyer I know (a lawyer making $ 1 million a year) came within a whisker of quitting his firm after losing a bitter dispute with one of his partners (a lawyer making over $ 2 million a year) over a $ 10,000 payment?

It is not because these lawyers need the money. Any of these lawyers could lose every penny of his savings and see his annual income reduced by two-thirds and still live much more comfortably than the vast majority of Americans. What's driving these lawyers is the desire to win the game. These lawyers have spent their entire lives competing against others and measuring their worth by how well they do in the competitions. And now that they are working in a law firm, money is the way they keep score. Money is what tells them if they're more successful than the lawyer in the next office--or in the next office building--or in the next town. If a lawyer's life is dominated by the game--and if his success in the game is measured by money--then his life is dominated by money. For many, many lawyers, it's that simple.

From: http://www.averyindex.com/happy_healthy_ethical.php


And you think you'll be different?

You're a nobody. We're all nobody's. None of us are unique. You're dealing with forces far more powerful than you'll ever comprehend.

Quote:

Here is the problem, though: After you start practicing law, nothing is likely to influence you more than "the culture or house norms of the agency, department, or firm" in which you work. 255 If you are going into private practice--particularly private practice in a big firm--you are going to be immersed in a culture that is hostile to the values you now have. The system does not want you to apply the same values in the workplace that you do outside of work (unless you're rapaciously greedy outside of work); it wants you to replace those values with the system's values. The system is obsessed with money, and it wants you to be, too. The system wants you--it needs you--to play the game.

Now, no one is going to say this to you. No one is going to take you aside and say, "Jane, we here at Smith & Jones are obsessed with money. From this point forward the most important thing in your life has to be billing hours and generating business. Family and friends and honesty and fairness are okay in moderation, but don't let them interfere with making money." No one will tell you, as one lawyer told another in a Charles Addams cartoon, "I admire your honesty and integrity, Wilson, but I have no room for them in my firm." 256 Instead, the culture will pressure you in more subtle ways to replace your values with the system's.

Here is an example of what I mean: During your first month working at the big firm, some senior partner will invite you and the other new associates to a barbeque at his home. This "barbeque" will bear absolutely no relationship to what your father used to do on a Weber grill in your driveway. You will drive up to the senior partner's home in your rusted Escort and park at the end of a long line of Mercedeses and BMWs and sports utility vehicles. You will walk up to the front door of the house. The house will be enormous. The lawn will look like a putting green; it will be bordered by perfectly manicured trees and flowers. Somebody wearing a white shirt and black bow tie will answer the door and direct you to the backyard. You will walk through one room after another, each of which will be decorated with expensive carpeting and expensive wallpaper and expensive antiques. Scattered throughout the home will be large professional photographs of beautiful children with tousled, sunbleached hair.

As you enter the partner's immaculately landscaped backyard, someone wearing a white shirt and black bow tie carrying a silver platter will approach you and offer you an appetizer. Don't look for cocktail weenies in barbeque sauce; you will more likely be offered pate or miniature quiches or shrimp. A bar will be set up near the house; the bartender (who will be wearing a white shirt and black bow tie, of course) will pour you a drink of the most expensive brand of whatever liquor you like. In the corner of the yard, a caterer will be grilling swordfish. In another corner will stand the senior partner, sipping a glass of white wine, holding court with a worshipful group of junior partners and senior associates.
The senior partner will be wearing designer sunglasses and designer clothes; the logo on his shirt will signal its exorbitant cost; his shorts will be pressed. He will have a tan--albeit a slightly orange, tanning salon enhanced tan--and the nicest haircut you've ever seen. Eventually, the partner will introduce you to his wife. She will be beautiful, very thin, and a lot younger than her husband. She, too, will have a great tan, and not nearly as orange as her husband's. You and the other lawyers will talk about golf. Or about tennis. After a couple hours, you will walk out the front door, slightly tipsy from the free liquor, and say to yourself, "This is the life."

In this and a thousand other ways, you will absorb big firm culture 257 --a culture of long hours of toil inside the office and short hours of conspicuous consumption outside the office. You will work among lawyers who will talk about money constantly and who will be intensely curious about how much money other lawyers are making. If you want to get some sense of this, leave your tax return on the photocopier glass sometime. (At least one hapless lawyer seems to do this every spring at most firms.) Every lawyer in the firm will know how much money you made last year in about fifteen minutes, and every lawyer who joins the firm during the next quarter century will hear the story of your tax return.

"What do you mean? How could working in a high-powered firm make you a worse person?"

Quote:

Unethical lawyers do not start out being unethical; they start out just like you--as perfectly decent young men or women who have every intention of practicing law ethically. They do not become unethical overnight; they become unethical just as you will (if you become unethical)--a little bit at a time. And they do not become unethical by shredding incriminating documents or bribing jurors; they become unethical just as you are likely to--by cutting a corner here, by stretching the truth a bit there.

Let me tell you how you will start acting unethically: It will start with your time sheets. One day, not too long after you start practicing law, you will sit down at the end of a long, tiring day, and you just won't have much to show for your efforts in terms of billable hours. It will be near the end of the month. You will know that all of the partners will be looking at your monthly time report in a few days, so what you'll do is pad your time sheet just a bit. Maybe you will bill a client for ninety minutes for a task that really took you only sixty minutes to perform. However, you will promise yourself that you will repay the client at the first opportunity by doing thirty minutes of work for the client for "free." In this way, you will be "borrowing," not "stealing."

And then what will happen is that it will become easier and easier to take these little loans against future work. And then, after a while, you will stop paying back these little loans. You will convince yourself that, although you billed for ninety minutes and spent only sixty minutes on the project, you did such good work that your client should pay a bit more for it. After all, your billing rate is awfully low, and your client is awfully rich.

And then you will pad more and more--every two minute telephone conversation will go down on the sheet as ten minutes, every three hour research project will go down with an extra quarter hour or so. You will continue to rationalize your dishonesty to yourself in various ways until one day you stop doing even that. And, before long--it won't take you much more than three or four years--you will be stealing from your clients almost every day, and you won't even notice it.

You know what? You will also likely become a liar. A deadline will come up one day, and, for reasons that are entirely your fault, you will not be able to meet it. So you will call your senior partner or your client and make up a white lie for why you missed the deadline. And then you will get busy and a partner will ask whether you proofread a lengthy prospectus and you will say yes, even though you didn't. And then you will be drafting a brief and you will quote language from a Supreme Court opinion even though you will know that, when read in context, the language does not remotely suggest what you are implying it suggests. And then, in preparing a client for a deposition, you will help the client to formulate an answer to a difficult question that will likely be asked--an answer that will be "legally accurate" but that will mislead your opponent. And then you will be reading through a big box of your client's documents--a box that has not been opened in twenty years--and you will find a document that would hurt your client's case, but that no one except you knows exists, and you will simply "forget" to produce it in response to your opponent's discovery requests.

Do you see what will happen? After a couple years of this, you won't even notice that you are lying and cheating and stealing every day that you practice law. None of these things will seem like a big deal in itself--an extra fifteen minutes added to a time sheet here, a little white lie to cover a missed deadline there. But, after a while, your entire frame of reference will change. You will still be making dozens of quick, instinctive decisions every day, but those decisions, instead of reflecting the notions of right and wrong by which you conduct your personal life, will instead reflect the set of values by which you will conduct your professional life--a set of values that embodies not what is right or wrong, but what is profitable, and what you can get away with. The system will have succeeded in replacing your values with the system's values, and the system will be profiting as a result.

"But I'm not like that. I'm going to go in, take what I want, and get out."

"I'm different from the rest."

But the irony is that if you go in not wanting to play the game but intending to make money, then you will end up not making any money.

Quote:

Likewise, not every big firm lawyer is a workaholic. This, too, is a matter of degree. I know big firm lawyers who make a good living and still eat dinner with their families most nights and spend most weekends away from the office. Unfortunately, though, these lawyers are almost invariably regarded by their partners as "deadwood" or as "semi-retired." If you think I am exaggerating, I challenge you to find one big firm partner who lives a balanced life--that is, who does not work regularly on nights or weekends (at home or at the office)--and yet is well respected and considered successful by his peers. And I challenge you to find one big firm lawyer who lived anything like a balanced life as an associate and still made partner. I do not know of such a lawyer. Not one. In the last couple years, I have given speeches to various groups of lawyers and judges, and I have challenged my audiences to identify one such big firm lawyer for me. I have yet to be given a name. At best, such partners are rare. They may be nonexistent.

Virtually all of my opinions on life, work, and women, are based on men who are either:

a.) Dead
b.) Older than 45 years.

I've yet to hear a single positive thing from those who've worked a high profile job from someone belonging to categories a or b.


I'll never forget one 72 year old lawyer I met in law school. I asked him, "Got any advice for us young guys?"

His voice dropped to a dead pitch. "If you don't like your first year of law school, get out."

[WestCoast]

All of those are law examples?

I am talking about finance where you make lawyer pay by mid 20's if you're good. (150-350)

I also have a laundry list of people who leave finance by 30ish. I have no doubt law is a bad idea, you get levered up for nothing.

Most people lack discipline in finance and law. They don't save, they let their health slide, they fuck it up. You have to have strong work game. Work out daily, eat well, sleep 8 hours and save 33-50%. This year is a 40% save year next will be 55%. It can be done.

Most people just don't have what it takes to separate themselves from the environment. People see and meet me and assume I spend a ton and live it up. No. Just hustle. I spend ~40% of my income since I switched to day game. And the recent trip I made international? $150 a day. Flight was free.

[lavidaloca]

Easy way around all of this which no one has stated... Become a sole practicioner in law, accounting, etc.

[Merenguero]

(09-27-2012 05:37 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  

Easy way around all of this which no one has stated... Become a sole practicioner in law, accounting, etc.

Since I started my law practice, I have put in approximately twice as many hours per week as when I worked for someone else. Before I went out on my own, I thought it would be the opposite. It's not as if I haven't reaped the benifits of those additional hours, however. In the year 2010 alone, I earned more than in the entire five years I spent working for someone else. There is no amount of money or anything else that could convince me to go back to working for someone else.

[Excelsior]

(09-27-2012 01:00 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

As soon as you "brag" you're done. Yes.

Effectively if you're well off you don't need I tell anyone they already know. This is extremely attractive. They can feel it.

He's rich, why isn't he blowing his cash in front of me?
Wow I found out he works at a large hedge fund and why is he takin me to a dive bar?
Wow he can afford to travel and does but why doesn't he tell me about it?
How come he doesn't "act" like he is rich.

The richer and more successful you are the easier it is to stir up jealousy/anger in people. You get through this for a conversation and the girl is yours. It's the biggest show of " I don't give a shit".

I am able to throw cash around but I don't because I hold the cards is the mentality.

At the end of the day you have that lifestyle to offer and you don't give it to "just anyone". Power.

Bingo. I talked about this in an earlier post, as did Hooligan Harry. Effortlessly attractive men are possibly the strongest magnets for women. The more attractive traits you can show without having to advertise explicitly (ex: no need to talk about it, brag about it, or even mention it casually), the more attractive you will be to women.
"Stuntin'" actually isn't that effective unless you're gunning for the lowest of the low on the gold-digging totem pole.

If instead you become the affluent, high quality guy who doesn't need to show it off (people can merely "tell" what you are as they see you), you'll see much better results. Women find that kind of mastery and confidence tough to resist.
It is the very opposite of the utter neediness and pedastalization they deal with every day from the men around them.

[lavidaloca]

(09-27-2012 06:05 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 05:37 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  

Easy way around all of this which no one has stated... Become a sole practicioner in law, accounting, etc.

Since I started my law practice, I have put in approximately twice as many hours per week as when I worked for someone else. Before I went out on my own, I thought it would be the opposite. It's not as if I haven't reaped the benifits of those additional hours, however. In the year 2010 alone, I earned more than in the entire five years I spent working for someone else. There is no amount of money or anything else that could convince me to go back to working for someone else.

That makes sense as you were starting the business. Now if you desired you could probably up your rates and decline your workload. I know personally lawyers who are doing the 40 weeks a year, 30 hours or so a week with exceptions i.e. trial time that still make them deep into the 99th percentile of all incomes. That's the dream. I start working next summer with one of them and in a couple years will report in as to whether it worked out.

[Excelsior]

(09-27-2012 05:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Not at all, my opinion is based on people who have five times the experience either of us have.

So is mine.

You vastly underestimate the extent of my knowledge. You seem to think that I (along with most others here who could be swayed one way or another by this discussion) am much more naive than is actually the case.

Quote:

You talk a lot about the game. But you don't win the game. The game wins you.

This is the type of defeatist logic I see from those who are looking to build an argument against game.
They're right-99% of guys can't learn game or really make it work for them. 99% of them will lose that battle. I decided not to join them.

I'm sure 99% of those folks fit the paradigm in the professional world that you are outlining. I don't plan on joining them, and I know plenty of folks who avoided it.
You give the system too much credit-it can be gamed, and it will be gamed.
It doesn't seem like we'll ever agree on this, and that's fine-I do not need to convince you.

Quote:

Thousands of lawyers choose to give up a healthy, happy, well-balanced life for a less healthy, less happy life dominated by work. And they do so merely to be able to make seven or eight times the national median income instead of five or six times the national median income.

Already, this article is focused on one aspect of "BigLaw" (read: firms where six-figure salaries are the norm). It is talking about a certain kind of BigLaw firm which, admittedly, is the most common kind. Lifestyle firms do exist, and can be found if you are someone who is willing to throttle down on some of that prestige and perhaps give up the possibility of seeing that $400,000 bonus at the end of the year.

I'll agree with this author in saying that the vast majority of folks shooting for "BigLaw" are incapable of doing this. They are hyper-competitive, and have been that way since the very beginning. A firm that is merely at the bottom of the AMLAW 100 isn't enough. They could go to a smaller firm with more congenial co-workers and a better work-life balance, and probably still make 5-6 times the national median income.

But they can't. They need to go to the right school and then work for the big name and the earn the big money, and they need to do it now. They need the big-firm lifestyle, the giant house out in fairfield county (or northern NJ), and all the other trappings of the elite life. They need the Big-Law money for this, and as a result they'll never stop competing. It is all about the lifestyle and the "prestige", not the money. These people start competing in high school-I see these personalities all the time on campus. I could start a whole new thread about their antics-I have this broken down to a science.

This will be a revelation to you, but I am a) fully aware of every pitfall outlined in this article and b) not as into the aforementioned money chase as you mentioned. I'm also not nearly as malleable ("it will change you!!!11!!") as you think either. I know that BigLaw is a grinder with an absurd turnover rate, and I am fully prepared for any scenario in which I become part of that high turnover. That isn't the end of the road-you seem not to realize this.

Also, I'm not a special snowflake. There are plenty of other wannabe-attorneys out there who are capable of being realistic about all this, and ready to do so. Not having a crushing undergrad debt load helps as well (some of the gunners are partially motivated by that albatross).

Quote:

Well, some are, but it is more complicated than that. For one thing, lawyers don't think in these terms. They don't see their lives as crazy. Lawyers don't see any of this. Lawyers don't sit down and think logically about why they are leading the lives they are leading any more than buffalo sit down and think logically about why they are stampeding. That is the primary reason I am writing this Article: I hope that you will sit down and think about the life that you want to lead before you get caught up in the stampede.

Did it, mostly by browsing several large forums and reading dozens of articles just like this one, as well as soliciting advice from folks with real experience. I do not come to my conclusions irrationally, and when I do make conclusions they tend to be based on sound reasoning. I think most of those who know me on this forum and in real life can attest to that.

Quote:

More importantly, though, the flaw in my analysis is that it assumes that the reason lawyers push themselves to make so much money is the money itself. In other words, my analysis assumes that the reason lawyers want to earn more money is that they want to spend more money and enjoy the things that money will buy.

College taught me how and why this is flawed. I know these people already-they aren't that hard to spot or figure out.
And no, I'm not one of them.

Quote:

Big firm lawyers are, on the whole, a remarkably insecure and competitive group of people.

That's the perfect description for me prior to my discovering this forum and learning game. Incredibly insecure, obsessed with attaining and maintaining validation, constantly competing even when I did not need to be and often hurting those near me in the process, pushing friends away with my need to tame my insecurity by trying to place myself "above" them in sports, academics, and everything else.

I changed, and I did that the hard way. I paid a heavy price for my insecurity. Your entire argument presumes that I've not done this, which is why we'll never agree. I'm not done growing, but I am above the challenge that you and this author are presenting right now.

Quote:

And you think you'll be different?

You're a nobody. We're all nobody's. None of us are unique.

1. My approach does not require you to be a "somebody".
2. My approach does not require you to be particularly "unique".
3. You overestimate the system and underestimate the individual. Your argument just isn't compelling in the face of all the information I have.

Quote:

You're dealing with forces far more powerful than you'll ever comprehend.

Abandon your account on this forum, quit game, and go join the blue-pill-taking 99% who cannot comprehend it.

Quote:

Here is the problem, though: After you start practicing law, nothing is likely to influence you more than "the culture or house norms of the agency, department, or firm" in which you work. 255 If you are going into private practice--particularly private practice in a big firm--you are going to be immersed in a culture that is hostile to the values you now have.

This varies by firm, of course. You can find what you'd like if you want it, but, as I said before, you'll have to give up your half a million dollar bonus dream and perhaps agree to live in "less exciting" places with less "prestigious" names on your card.

90% of folks can't do this, even in the long term. Too bad for them.

Quote:

Now, no one is going to say this to you. No one is going to take you aside and say, "Jane, we here at Smith & Jones are obsessed with money. From this point forward the most important thing in your life has to be billing hours and generating business. Family and friends and honesty and fairness are okay in moderation, but don't let them interfere with making money."

Nobody needs to say that for me to know it. I learned all about this level of society and the folks in it while in college. Adapting to their world was challenging, but quite rewarding in the end. I know all about them now.

Quote:

Instead, the culture will pressure you in more subtle ways to replace your values with the system's.

Kind of like the beta-dominated matrix that every red-pill taker lives in? The system that fills our televisions, radios, live events and general existence with emasculating BS?
Tell me, how'd you and I get around that challenge?

Quote:

Here is an example of what I mean: During your first month working at the big firm, some senior partner will invite you and the other new associates to a barbeque at his home. This "barbeque" will bear absolutely no relationship to what your father used to do on a Weber grill in your driveway. You will drive up to the senior partner's home in your rusted Escort and park at the end of a long line of Mercedeses and BMWs and sports utility vehicles. You will walk up to the front door of the house. The house will be enormous. The lawn will look like a putting green; it will be bordered by perfectly manicured trees and flowers. Somebody wearing a white shirt and black bow tie will answer the door and direct you to the backyard. You will walk through one room after another, each of which will be decorated with expensive carpeting and expensive wallpaper and expensive antiques. Scattered throughout the home will be large professional photographs of beautiful children with tousled, sunbleached hair.

As you enter the partner's immaculately landscaped backyard, someone wearing a white shirt and black bow tie carrying a silver platter will approach you and offer you an appetizer. Don't look for cocktail weenies in barbeque sauce; you will more likely be offered pate or miniature quiches or shrimp. A bar will be set up near the house; the bartender (who will be wearing a white shirt and black bow tie, of course) will pour you a drink of the most expensive brand of whatever liquor you like. In the corner of the yard, a caterer will be grilling swordfish. In another corner will stand the senior partner, sipping a glass of white wine, holding court with a worshipful group of junior partners and senior associates.
The senior partner will be wearing designer sunglasses and designer clothes; the logo on his shirt will signal its exorbitant cost; his shorts will be pressed. He will have a tan--albeit a slightly orange, tanning salon enhanced tan--and the nicest haircut you've ever seen. [b]Eventually, the partner will introduce you to his wife. She will be beautiful, very thin, and a lot younger than her husband. She, too, will have a great tan, and not nearly as orange as her husband's. You and the other lawyers will talk about golf. Or about tennis. After a couple hours, you will walk out the front door, slightly tipsy from the free liquor, and say to yourself, "This is the life."

Seen this a million times-same lifestyle repeated again and again. My school is filled with this narrative and the products of it. I used to dream about it-it was all I wanted and all I competed for in college and in high school.

Then I grew up, learned game and learned the hard way about the pitfalls of all that and of my own insecure jockeying for it. This is not "the life"*. I don't need the tan (I'm black, remember?) nor do I need the marriage (game opened my eyes to that trap), or the giant house for show (don't want the huge mortgage).
I've learned this lessons now-I'm not going to need to re-learn them then.

*I will concede that I kinda do want the fly, somewhat expensive car, but it'll still be used. I'm willing to compromise further there too if need be-I like the $30,000 Infiniti/Lexus as much as the $100,000 Aston Martin.

Quote:

You will work among lawyers who will talk about money constantly and who will be intensely curious about how much money other lawyers are making.[/b]

I used to be like that. That's another lesson I learned-shut up about money.

Quote:

"What do you mean? How could working in a high-powered firm make you a worse person?"

There are about a million answers I can give you myself aside from the ones this article will provide. None of them are things I'm unprepared for (especially the whole making-up billable hours deal).

Quote:

"But I'm not like that. I'm going to go in, take what I want, and get out."

Yeah, pretty much.

Quote:

"I'm different from the rest."

And so are you-that's why you're on this site.

Quote:

But the irony is that if you go in not wanting to play the game but intending to make money, then you will end up not making less money.

I fixed that for you.

You'll can go into this career and get plenty of cash while avoiding some of its worst aspects, but you will (as I've said twice before in this post-I hope it has sunk in) have to give up some money and prestige.
Like the author said-play the game right and you'll make 7-8 times the national median income like all of these competitive folks. Compromise and you can make 5-6 times that income instead. Again, most are unwilling to take that hit. Some are. My goals (financial stability, fully-paid condo/townhome, eventual expatriation, etc) do not require the maximum income. I don't need to make partner at a V50 firm to get where I want in life (though putting in a few years as an associate at one wouldn't hurt-even if that doesn't happen I'll be fine, there are literally hundreds of other opportunities available that I'm open to).

You can enter this field and make it work for you in the long term, but it will involve a) discipline, b) realism and c) a willingness to give and take that few in this society have maintained (being a bit of a foreigner helps me with this last one).
Most can't do it, I agree, but it is intellectually disingenuous to dismiss the possibility, and your argument is based on doing just that.

[WestCoast]

Athlone you absolutely get it. If you go the Wall Street route you let me know and I'll help you with whatever interview questions or whatever you need. Let me tell you though as a warning, Wall Street is 70x harder than school. School is a joke. By harder I mean the street is the most emotionally challenging place to be, work politics while pretending you're keeping up with the Jonas is a disaster.

With that said I'm back on hiatus for a while, peace guys.

[mr thin]

(09-27-2012 08:23 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

Athlone you absolutely get it. If you go the Wall Street route you let me know and I'll help you with whatever interview questions or whatever you need. Let me tell you though as a warning, Wall Street is 70x harder than school. School is a joke. By harder I mean the street is the most emotionally challenging place to be, work politics while pretending you're keeping up with the Jonas is a disaster.

With that said I'm back on hiatus for a while, peace guys.

been at client events with some of the big banks i would agree with this. i think though thats always going to be the case in such a competitive industry.


i would say though that its like any job, if you have game, you can get girls. none of the guy i met from ib had any game, or any personality really. but i guess thats down to the crazy hours that they work that the only conversation they have is about work (Zzzz). if you do have game though i suppose thats a good thing as thers no competition and some of the grads / interns are pretty hot!


smart (cambridge, oxford type level in the uk) but seems a waste to use their talent in such an industry. these guys should be curing cancer not stuck in some office on a spreadheet.

[Excelsior]

(09-29-2012 04:49 AM)mr thin Wrote:  

smart (cambridge, oxford type level in the uk) but seems a waste to use their talent in such an industry. these guys should be curing cancer not stuck in some office on a spreadheet.

The structure of western society right now incentivizes their moving into finance as opposed to the more substantial medical/engineering/stem fields.

This is painfully obvious in the US, especially when you compare the paths of finance and medicine. Highly educated kids that aspire and feed into these fields come into college and (since the bulk of them are middle/upper middle class and try to get into the best schools they can to give them the best opportunities later) leave with masses of debt.

If you go to a good school and come from a family with an income north of the national median, you could very well be looking at six-figures worth of private, non-dischargeable student loan obligations after you're done with undergrad. This is an alarmingly common reality, even for kids at public schools with lower tuition rates (those just keep going up).

Unless they're blessed with generous, forward-thinking parents (who'll have saved up to cover their expenses), athletic enough to get athletic scholarships or fortunate enough to snag full academic scholarships (not an easy feat if you're shooting for any school, much less a well respected one), it is likely you'll come out with anywhere from $60,000 to $200,000 worth of debt.

And that's just undergrad-you still have to think about your post-college education if you want a good professional career!

Let's say you're a freshly minted graduate of a good, top 25 American university or liberal arts college. You came from a good home with a household income north of $150,000. Financial aid wasn't that kind to you, so you've got $120,000 in private, non-dischargeable student loan debt to pay off. If you're among the more science-adept graduates who did pre-med (and got a good GPA) and could succeed in medical school, you have a couple of main choices:

A. Go into medicine.

This means 4 more years of med school, possibly another six figures worth of debt added on to the six figures you already have.

But wait, there's more! You'll need to complete at least 3 more years of residency after that if you want to become a physician (possibly 7 if you're trying for a more challenging focus like neurosurgery). You can also add anywhere from 1-3 years in a fellowship following this, depending on your specialty. So we're talking about anywhere from 4-8 years here AFTER med school. You won't be making much more as a fellow than you will as a resident, though things will improve a little. It might be 8 or 9 years before you can begin really working as a physician, and it probably won't be less than 5.

That brings me to the salary issue-an important one, since you'll want to get started on paying down that $200,000+ debt you built up during undergrad and med school. During your residency you'll be making $11-13 per hour, less than some of the nurses below you and much lower than the average college grad with your level of education. You'll have little chance during those 4-8 years to recover on your debt which, when combined with your undergrad, is probably anywhere from $120,000 to $300,000 (at a minimum, more than 3 times what you'll be making annually as a resident). Expect to work crazy hours too, since hospitals know you have no other options and feel quite comfortable forcing any undesirable working conditions on you so long as it benefits them (where else are you going to go?).

Do you want kids and a quality, middle class lifestyle similar to the one you grew up with? Good luck getting to that before your mid-30's, especially if you want to enter a more challenging (and highly compensated) field. With that debt albatross on your back (plus interest!), you'll be making less in the aggregate during your career than many high school teachers.

Of course, there are other choices for you...

B. Go into finance.

If you've got the mental horsepower to do well on a pre-med track at a good school, you'll have no issue with banking work. You could make a salary of anywhere from $70,000 to $120,000 a year immediately after graduation, without having to add to the $120,000 debt you already have. This is money you wouldn't see for another decade if you took the medical school route. Yeah, your hours will still be crazy, but at least you'll be well compensated for them!

You can tackle that debt immediately, and be debt free by your early 30's (or even your late 20's if you're really diligent). Some firms may even help you with you MBA costs (which will take only 3 years, not med school's 4) if you choose to go down that route after 4-5 years working, and once you come out of there you'll be making even more money annually (easily double your total undergraduate debt load).

You can have that lifestyle you wanted by 30 (wife, kids, nice home in good area, ability to travel and save money) by the time you hit your early 30's. You might have to wait much longer to see this if you want to be a doctor.

So, considering all of this, which path would you choose? The path of the physician is certainly more noble, and we absolutely do need more of these bright, well educated minds going down that road instead of the less essential (and arguably more parasitic) finance/business "money magician" route.

But, given the factors as they are, it is somewhat difficult to argue against the kid who chooses the path of least resistance. The length of the journey to become a doctor is one thing-I think everyone respects the reality that extensive training is necessary for anyone who will have human lives in their hands on a regular basis. The difficulty of pre-med and medical school coursework is perfectly rational and justifiable too for the same reason.

But the debt? That's another story. It is one thing to sacrifice time and ease for the profession, but to have to put yourself in a financial hole that you may never get out of? This forces these people to put everything they may hold dear (family, travel, financial security, and just general quality of life) off until their 40's. Life may literally not truly begin until 40 for some of these people.
Is that right? Is this extra difficulty (financial hardship) really worthwhile? Does it enhance the quality of those who choose this path, and improve their work?
Or is it merely a hindrance that weighs down the dedicated people who already give a tremendous amount of their time and effort for the sake of the work (difficult pre-med/med-school work and years of residency) while harming the quality of the field itself by turning bright minds way and creating a potentially dangerous numerical deficiency?

Bottomline: You're right, these folks should be solving medical dilemmas instead of working on excel spreadsheets and coming up with new ways to bet on markets and muck around with imaginary money. The problem is that incentives drive behavior, and right now the incentives aren't pointing in the direction many would consider more noble and helpful to society.

[brownman]

Athlone, your argument blew my mind. I made the decision between finance and medicine based on financial incentive. I was advised against it, but was stubborn and persisted. Six bitter and twisted years later, I get it. Most people would rather take the shortcut than the higher road, it's human weakness in the face of uncertainty.

I'm going on a tangent here based on your signature, so if money is a superior motive to women, yet it has shown that the system is rigged. Is there something greater than money that should be the driving force of man? If so, what could it be?

[gringochileno]

(09-29-2012 05:22 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

A. Go into medicine.

This means 4 more years of med school, possibly another six figures worth of debt added on to the six figures you already have.

But wait, there's more! You'll need to complete at least 3 more years of residency after that if you want to become a physician (possibly 7 if you're trying for a more challenging focus like neurosurgery). You can also add anywhere from 1-3 years in a fellowship following this, depending on your specialty. So we're talking about anywhere from 4-8 years here AFTER med school. You won't be making much more as a fellow than you will as a resident, though things will improve a little. It might be 8 or 9 years before you can begin really working as a physician, and it probably won't be less than 5.

That brings me to the salary issue-an important one, since you'll want to get started on paying down that $200,000+ debt you built up during undergrad and med school. During your residency you'll be making $11-13 per hour, less than some of the nurses below you and much lower than the average college grad with your level of education. You'll have little chance during those 4-8 years to recover on your debt which, when combined with your undergrad, is probably anywhere from $120,000 to $300,000 (at a minimum, more than 3 times what you'll be making annually as a resident). Expect to work crazy hours too, since hospitals know you have no other options and feel quite comfortable forcing any undesirable working conditions on you so long as it benefits them (where else are you going to go?).

Do you want kids and a quality, middle class lifestyle similar to the one you grew up with? Good luck getting to that before your mid-30's, especially if you want to enter a more challenging (and highly compensated) field. With that debt albatross on your back (plus interest!), you'll be making less in the aggregate during your career than many high school teachers.

Yeah debt is a big overlooked issue (as is the opportunity cost of being in med school and residency instead of working and making money), but I don't think the situation is as bleak as it sounds. You just have to be smart about it.

If you're lucky to have a relatively cheap in-state medical school, that can significantly bring down the amount of debt you need to take on (many of the lowest-tuition med schools are pretty damn good too).

It's also not true that you have to go into a demanding field with a long, grueling residency program in order to have a high salary. Specialties like radiology, anesthesiology, ophthalmology, dermatology, pathology, and emergency medicine all have 3 or 4-year residency programs and are very well-compensated. The people who really get the shaft are the ones going into primary care specialties like family medicine, pediatrics, and internal medicine--and not surprisingly, those specialties are the ones that are looking at serious physician shortages. It's also not necessary to go through fellowship training unless you want to sub-specialize in something in particular, although many people don't really see this as much of a barrier anyway since fellowships are only 1 or 2 years long. Plenty of physicians don't do fellowships and have no problem getting good jobs.

Overall you're probably still right that finance is a better deal overall if you're looking to make a lot of money at an early age, but going into medicine isn't as bleak a prospect as it sounds like as long as you're not an idiot about it (and I'd argue there's something to be said for the idea that having a career where you inarguably do a lot of good for people is ultimately more fulfilling than one whose social value is a lot more ambiguous).

[Excelsior]

(09-29-2012 08:33 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

Yeah debt is a big overlooked issue (as is the opportunity cost of being in med school and residency instead of working and making money), but I don't think the situation is as bleak as it sounds. You just have to be smart about it.

The savviest and most fortunate among us avoid the traps, sure. But most folks don't fit that bill.

Quote:

If you're lucky to have a relatively cheap in-state medical school, that can significantly bring down the amount of debt you need to take on (many of the lowest-tuition med schools are pretty damn good too).

"If" and "lucky" being the key words here. It is absolutely possible to avoid some of the traps I mentioned. To use an example, I assumed undergrad debt of $120,000 for the hypothetical grad in my last post-if you're lucky and have a great in-state public school (ex: Cal-Berkeley, Michigan, Virginia) and can snag a scholly or two, you could quite plausibly cut that figure in half.
The vast majority of folks aren't going to be that fortunate, however. If you come from a relatively comfortable background, it won't be easy to avoid the debt trap without compromising academic quality.

Hopefully this will change as our generation gets a larger voice, but for now this is the sad reality and it is having an impact on the paths our brightest minds decide to take. It is a serious issue.

Quote:

It's also not true that you have to go into a demanding field with a long, grueling residency program in order to have a high salary. Specialties like radiology, anesthesiology, ophthalmology, dermatology, pathology, and emergency medicine all have 3 or 4-year residency programs and are very well-compensated.

True. Those will give you a shot at having a solid, comfortable lifestyle beginning in your early (30-32) thirties, unlike neurosurgery (good luck getting any real traction before 34).

Quote:

The people who really get the shaft are the ones going into primary care specialties like family medicine, pediatrics, and internal medicine--and not surprisingly, those specialties are the ones that are looking at serious physician shortages.

And this is the issue. We disincentivize a behavior and still expect enough folks to keep engaging in it.

Quote:

It's also not necessary to go through fellowship training unless you want to sub-specialize in something in particular, although many people don't really see this as much of a barrier anyway since fellowships are only 1 or 2 years long. Plenty of physicians don't do fellowships and have no problem getting good jobs.

True. I was thinking of a surgeon I know when I mentioned this, but now that I think of it he does have a particular sub-specialty (neuroendoscopy).

Quote:

Overall you're probably still right that finance is a better deal overall if you're looking to make a lot of money at an early age, but going into medicine isn't as bleak a prospect as it sounds like as long as you're not an idiot about it (and I'd argue there's something to be said for the idea that having a career where you inarguably do a lot of good for people is ultimately more fulfilling than one whose social value is a lot more ambiguous).

I agree with the last sentence, though with regards to the first half of this quoted passage I still think that the risk-reward balance in our society is skewed far too heavily in favor of less socially valuable pursuits. We don't have our priorities straight, and the monetization of everything from education to healthcare in the US has a lot to do with that.

[lavidaloca]

I feel bad for those in the US. I'll be graduating with sub 20k in debt with a Business undergrad and a law degree. Most people admittedly will be closer to 100k in debt afterwards. But that is no where near the figures in the US. That is absolutely ridiculous.

[Deluge]

(09-30-2012 02:21 AM)lavidaloca Wrote:  

I feel bad for those in the US. I'll be graduating with sub 20k in debt with a Business undergrad and a law degree. Most people admittedly will be closer to 100k in debt afterwards. But that is no where near the figures in the US. That is absolutely ridiculous.

If you were an Aussie or New Zealand citizen or permanent resident you could've done an undergraduate degree in Medicine or Law/Arts or Law/Commerce at the very best top tier universities here that would've set you back $9k a year for the five years of the degree. So $45k debt all up to be a Doctor or Lawyer.

You'd have automatically qualified for a scheme where you'd get an interest free inflation adjusting loan that they'd only start taking out of your salary once you start working full time.

If you had the cash on hand and could've payed up front during your degree, you'd have gotten a 20% discount too, so maybe as low as $36k total for a top tier undergrad Law or Med degree in a first world English speaking country.

[mr thin]

(09-29-2012 08:33 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

Overall you're probably still right that finance is a better deal overall if you're looking to make a lot of money at an early age, but going into medicine isn't as bleak a prospect as it sounds like as long as you're not an idiot about it (and I'd argue there's something to be said for the idea that having a career where you inarguably do a lot of good for people is ultimately more fulfilling than one whose social value is a lot more ambiguous).

i would agree with that. its like winning the lottery.. would it make you happy? well yeah it would be awesome, but would it really make you happy, content and fulfilled in life? im not sure it would.


--

i would recommend that anyone who is considering a career in finance, works in finance or is just interested generally to read a book called cityboy - its fiction but is pretty close to the authors personal experiences in the city.

its hilarious in parts and some of the things the author describes (the competitiveness, underhand tactics, women etc) are very accurate and you can tell he has worked in finance from reading it. i dont think an author with no finance background could understand or describe it in the same way. he also talks about how enron and how whatever the state does to try and control the sector, theyre fighting a losing battle. the fact its fiction makes it a lot more enjoyable to read.

i was personally having doubts about working in the city (i.e. do i really want to do this for the next twenty years) and quit not long after reading this book (though in saying that i probably would have quit anyway). the big thing it taught me though is go with what you actually want to do in life, and not for money or the "prestige" of working in such a role.

[WestCoast]

The right way to do this right now is below:

1. Community college while in high school
2. Get straight A's it's easy as shit
3. Go to college on a faster/lighter track so you can work part time real internships
4. Interview
5. Survive petrochemical engineerIng or finance for 3-4 years.
6. Start making 150+. Never upgrade lifestyle
7. Stack up "fuck you money" $250K plus
8. Do whatever you want in your 30's and get a chill job

"Living the dream" that's your map.

The real hard part is setting up a few hours a week to start tooling your game, took me 5 years to get any good. You can do both just need to know what you signed up for

One final note and a hard dose of irony.

If you have game and work on the street you work less, get paid more and get promoted faster and get ranked higher. Why? Because its your ability to oversell how much you are needed just like selling a girl that you're the best option.

[3agle 3yes]

I've been reading this thread for a while now, lots of good points etc, for both sides of the argument.

But the premise of the thread seems to be:

"money doesn't = success with women"

Really? Who'd of thought?

If someone is relying on money to bang girls, then they're relying on something OTHER than themselves. And what does relying on something else other than yourself to bangs girls mean? Compensation. And compensation can only take you so far.

Yes, women AREN'T logical...a girl won't see a wealthy man and think "Wow! This man has a lot of money, I gonna make myself attracted to him".

Everybody here knows this (I hope), so why the discussion?

All the example of the Wall Street wives proves is that lack of game = lack of quality in women (looks-wise at least) and who here (of all places) doesn't know this?

ANY MAN who isn't sexually (SEXUALLY is the word here) confident with women is not going to be banging the hot ones...why is this even a discussion?

So, why do people learn game? Why do people want to be wealthy? Why do men want to bang hot women?

Because people want piece of mind, because people want to achieve something in their lives and quite simply people want to feel good.

But either one alone is not the be all and end all.

I, for one DO NOT live my life for women...If all you do is think about girls, talk about girls and bang them all day...then guess what? Your life REVOLVES around women.

The same can be said for those who want a big money job and work ONLY because of the paycheck.

What's my purpose in life? What's my goal?

NIETHER money or women...it is simply TO GROW as a human being.

I want to be a better man...a greater man than last year, last month, last week...or yesterday even.

Life is a unique experience for each one of us...and no I'm not talking out of my ass here.

When I get old, I will not think of all the girls I banged, I will not think of all the money I earned (no one 'makes' money BTW, unless you work at a print factory)...I will think to myself wether I have made a difference...has this world been a better or worse place because of my existence? I would've rather had some impact regardless of what which one it was as opposed to having no impact at all.