In the UK, lawyers mean salary is below the national average. A couple of years ago it was 25k GBP / $40k. Lawyers salaries get a reputation of being high because most people don't realise that:
1) most lawyers do not work in front-facing roles in law firms. They are in house counsel, or consultants, or work in finance or employment or for charities or many other fields where salaries are low.
2) the hourly rates they see are 2-3 times higher than the lawyers salary on the low end. In big law firms the multiple is much higher, because there's a massive amount of support staff (e.g. my ex practised at a law firm big enough to have a 24/7 team to print documents, 24/7 IT support helpdesk for staff etc.), and because that's how the partners make their profit.
3) there's a small core of really, really expensive lawfirms that gets all the headlines. E.g. in the UK we have the "Magic Circle" lawfirms (the five largest UK firms - of which 4 are in the top 10 largest lawfirms worldwide - the rest of the top ten are US firms), then the "Silver Circle", and then the rest. The Magic Circle lawfirms have training contracts that pay in the GBP 40k+ range, and 1 year post-qualification lawyers can earn 60k-100k (GBP). Salaries then tend to go up by huge steps every 6-12 months, so up to several hundred k GBP for senior associates, and a couple of million for partners in some of these firms. Far more for equity partners in some niche firms. Now consider the mean salary again, and consider how much these firms pull it up...
4) many of the "best" paying firms works people to the bone, and so absolute salaries are high, but hourly rates are not. My ex. qualified at one of the Magic Circle firms, and though she made more than twice the UK average salary, two years out of university, she worked so many hours that her hourly rate was less than what her secretary was paid (she's since shifted to a non-practising role in the same firm for exactly this reason; coming home at 3am was not enough to make the money worth it). She was billed out at 200 GBP per hour, but her salary was fixed, so of course it was in the firms interest to work people as hard as possible. And everyone in these firms are asked if they will "voluntarily" sign away the EU Working Time Directive restrictions (UK has an exception from the Working Time Directive that allows UK employers to do this; in theory it is illegal to punish staff for not signing a waiver; then there's practice). She could easily earn in her yearly salary for the firm in 5 weeks of billing.
Yes, mistaken. 3yrs experience at $1000/hr? Not to mention the rates you see are usually firm rates not net to an individual so you have to take out other costs.
But what part of the curve are you looking at? You really think that top 0.01% of lawyers are making less than $900k/year? How good do you have to be at year 4 to hit that kind of target?
The UK largest law firms, 4 of which are amongst the top 10 firms in the world, nets something like $3 million - $5 million per equity partner.
Note that this is per equity partner. Many of the largest firms are increasingly choosing to award "partner" status without an equity share as they grow larger, and a non-equity partner will already earn much less.
Most of the top firms will pay a maximum of about $300k/year to 4 year PQE (post qualification experience) in the UK, with UK offices of leading US firms at the top. There may be exceptions for people that make themselves really noticed and manage to land big bonuses. That's generally 6 year after leaving university because of the UK system of training contracts. 2 year PQE's in UK Magic Circle firms can earn about $100k/year.
Some smaller boutique firms in niches may pay substantially more, but they will also generally not take trainees and instead hire away top talents from the leading firms.
To get those kind of salaries you mention by year 4, the answer would be you'd need to bring in big enough clients that your firm is worried you'll walk.
Not sure why the article would say it's peculiar when it's the same thing Rose did before:
> [North] has a peculiar strategy. Rather than languish on building one app, North is trying to use a small team of about 3 people to launch a new mobile app every three months.
Certainly depression in tech is real and people suffering deserve help (and can hopefully get it given their station in life).
But when you strive for hyper-ambitious outcomes, whether it be selling your company for $2B, trying to change the world, or training to become a world champion fighter, you're likely going to suffer some injuries that you might not fully recover from.
I feel for all the people who are depressed AND struggling to find their next meal--working in fast food or in factories, being treated as if they were less-than-human.
I find it super-hard to get worked up when we founders and startup employees get to have health insurance, good salaries, free food and education, and a chance to win the lottery.
People who are suffering from clinical depression may not have. The pain will be the same irrespective of their position in society.
I know what you mean, many of my (adult) students are doing a couple of minimum wage jobs, looking after children and/or parents and trying to study. Not easy.
> You have perspective. People who are suffering from clinical depression may not have.
You're using "perspective" in an unclear way here, as though it means optimism or a long view. In fact, studies show that depressed people often have better, more accurate, perceptions of reality than non-depressed people. This state of being even has an associated theory or school of thought:
Quote: "Although depressed individuals are thought to have a negative cognitive bias that results in recurrent, negative automatic thoughts, maladaptive behaviors, and dysfunctional world beliefs,[2][3][4] depressive realism argues not only that this negativity may reflect a more accurate appraisal of the world but also that non-depressed individuals’ appraisals are positively biased."
If this idea turns out to have scientific merit (which it doesn't at the moment), I would find that depressing.
FWIW, Foursquare data in Europe is not very good, I think FB geo data is better. I've mentioned this before on HN, Foursquare in Europe is quite unreliable, with places appearing way off the real location, badly categorised (e.g. a restaurant categorised as a bar), etc. I guess quality on these services depends where you are.
Probably more of a human thing than technical. The accuracy benefits from crowd-sourcing and Foursquare is used relatively significantly more in the US.
I think it's even harder when both parents work full-time.
When your spouse doesn't work, you can often pull off late nights knowing your kids and house are under control. But when both parents have high-stakes jobs it's super hard because you're almost always subject to a hard stop.
It's also a mindset thing--keeping your startup's problems in your head and trying to think and plan for the family (who has practice this weekend? is the preschool application in? who's meeting the plumber today? etc.).
I'm crossing all of my fingers and toes. Who sent the email that he took a screenshot of, though? On second thought, I suppose that would give away his source.
That response is quoted in the NYT article: “The same rules will apply to all Internet content. As with the original open Internet rules, and consistent with the court’s decision, behavior that harms consumers or competition will not be permitted.”
Hilarious. In Wheeler's view, consistency means every large, wealthy corporation has an equal opportunity to pay extra for faster access to customers.
It sounds like the intent is to hew closely to the original order but to adapt it exactly and only as much as necessary to conform to what the FCC perceives to be the parameters of the D.C. Circuit decision.
The problem I have with customer development interviews is that people often suck at verbalizing what they really need.
I much prefer Amy Hoy's "safari" approach where you silently observe and record what people do and say in their natural environment (vs. the "zoo" that is a customer development interview).
