Our last poll, asking "Are Associate Salaries Justified," drew just
over 300 votes, and here are the results:

Since it’s almost illegible at this resolution, here’s a recap of
the breakdown:

  • 36%, the plurality by far, representing the repressed-economist
    vote, responded "Yes–the only rational response to competitive
    forces."
  • 24%, the meritocrats, chose "Yes–required to attract top-tier
    students."
  • 16%, the curmudgeonly crowd, opined "No way; it strikes me as
    collective insanity."
  • 12%, the ex-Marine’s, voted "Yes–they’re required to extract
    hard work."
  • 10%, the resigned fatalists, went for "Who knows?  We
    can’t control it anyway," and finally
  • 3%, speaking either for the ex-Marine’s who were also drill instructors,
    or the profit-impaired firms, voted, "No way; and Stracher’s 50%
    cut is overdue."

My reading on this?

Since 72% voted "yes" in one form or another, and barely a quarter
of that number (19%) voted "no," the firm consensus appears to be
that matters are not gravely out of whack on this score.  (10%
took the agnostic route.)

I happen to agree that there’s ample justification for paying associates
handsomely:  Either on the grounds of Gregory
Mankiw’s
"efficient
wage theory," or else on my personal theory, which is that (a) paying
people richly, and (b) expecting them to work like dogs in
exchange, is the perfect introduction to what the life of a partner
is like.  Consider it akin to an 8 to 10-year hazing process;
I predict that those who emerge alive and kicking at the other end
of this funnel will indeed be partnership material.

Related Articles

Email Delivery

Get Our Latest Articles Delivered to your inbox +