BigFirms to 190k? How many more billables does that add up to?

Since many of my cohorts in the bar review course have been abuzz as of late with the greedy threads that have been posted recently at Above the Law (e.g., Skadden rumors to $190k), I thought I would chime into the more ominous question that seems to be avoided on these threads: In terms of billable hours, with even the 18% increase in pay that came this year for most firms first-year associate salaries, how much more do the firms expect to get out of us? I shudder at the answer if we're already above the 2000-2100 range.

And while I have tried to stay as neutral as I can as far as these ridiculously high pay scales, sometimes it's tough to not think about. Playing around with the non-existent 2010 $190k starting salary, you figure that's about $114k AFTER taxes, and going by straight months/hours analysis, you're clearing nearly $2500/week. At my first job out of college, I was lucky to make that much in a month before taxes. And I worked in one of the top fifteen largest cities (not necessarily on the east coast).

So if anything good can come of these salary talks, it at least forces the rest of the country to at least consider following New York. Or it suggests that our economy is stronger than the Fed seems to be saying.... Obviously the majority of Big or even Medium firms won't match, but at least the ripple effect should help those in all the rest of the major markets (DC, Chicago, San Fran/L.A., etc.). What I really want to see is the rest of the firms fall in line with matching the Big Firms' $50k clerkship bonuses (or at least chipping it to a reasonable $35k, is that too much to ask?). Sure, you get what you pay for, but at what cost?

Tags: skadden bumps, clerkship bonus, new york law pay scale