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.