They're talking about 2000 billable hours and 2500-3000 actual hours (50 to 60 hours a week).

Of course, many engineers work similar hours, for far less than a NYC law associate.

I would argue, pretty strongly, many engineers do not work similar hours (or work at such "efficiency") in as stressful a way as the lawyers are working.

Of course, I don't argue doing such a thing is necessary or even useful to being a good engineer, just that i think you are giving pretty short shrift to the other side of this :)

Perhaps a lawyer's working hours tend to be more "efficient" or more stressful. My interaction has been primarily limited to in-house patent attorneys, and they don't seem to work appreciably harder or be more stressed out.

Work-related stress is a big issue. Regardless, putting in long hours at work, regardless of stress level, means less time for family, friends, hobbies, recreation, exercise, sleep, etc.

" My interaction has been primarily limited to in-house patent attorneys, and they don't seem to work appreciably harder or be more stressed out."

This is definitely true, but that is precisely the difference between biglaw and in-house.

biglaw has worse-than-startup hours.

in-house is basically 9-5.

(though i've been called at 1am on my wedding anniversary before, it is basically the only thing that happened in 10 years)

There is a significant paycut associated with in-house as a result, of course.

Some engineers work that for 50k in the name of "working for a startup to be the next zucker".

A zucker is born every minute, they say.

yes, but (and I'm biased), it seems plausible that a higher percentage of engineers enjoy a larger fraction of their work than law associates. I have no numbers to back this up, but very few people pick up corporate law as a hobby.