How does IBR affect your decision?

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
Wooster33
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: How does IBR affect your decision?

Postby Wooster33 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:11 pm

The government (and taxpayers) MAKES money off the majority of loans.


Before IBR that is probably true; I don't have a reason to doubt it. I certainly hope that it remains the case. And, not to be picky, but it's ambiguous what you mean here. The government could still be losing money on ALL loans while "making money off the majority of loans." Not like it matters, but saying that 51% of loans turn a profit is not the same as saying the program as a whole makes a profit.

To a recent comment about getting a 160k lawyer via IBR: As I have said many times already--the government had no trouble recruiting quality lawyers before IBR, positions like DOJ always were extremely competitive.

To Vanwinkle, if you are going to say statements I made are "ridiculously false," you really should explain why. You think legal aid is sophisticated work requiring first-rate minds? You disagree that PI orgs like the ACLU had trouble recruiting first-rate minds in the absence of IBR? Please, enlighten me.

Devin the Dude
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:26 am

Re: How does IBR affect your decision?

Postby Devin the Dude » Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:07 am

IBR was not created for lawyers. We're just a small part of the puzzle. For better or worse, the main beneficiaries of IBR are college-educated public sector workers. In short, I'm talking about teachers, healthcare workers, and minorities who get preferences for government jobs. The other obvious beneficiaries are universities, of course.

It's no coincidence that all these groups are well-organized and good at lobbying. This is not public-interest legislation; seems like an interest-group bargain to me.

The government will probably make money off ankle-draggers on the 25-year plan who make payments for their entire working lives, only to be slapped with a $100k tax bill at the convenient age of 55. That's us. This bill was not meant to help us.

But the government will lose money supporting, and thus subsidize, the intended interest-group beneficiaries.

User avatar
thuggishruggishbone
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:53 pm

Re: How does IBR affect your decision?

Postby thuggishruggishbone » Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:19 am

IBR is a godsend for those working private sector shitlaw making 40k a year.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: How does IBR affect your decision?

Postby vanwinkle » Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:58 am

Wooster33 wrote:To Vanwinkle, if you are going to say statements I made are "ridiculously false," you really should explain why. You think legal aid is sophisticated work requiring first-rate minds? You disagree that PI orgs like the ACLU had trouble recruiting first-rate minds in the absence of IBR? Please, enlighten me.

Yes, legal aid is often sophisticated work, and who are you to judge whether or not people deserve high-quality representation or not? I agree that high-profile groups like the ACLU can typically attract lawyers willing to work there, but you very unfairly use a bright dividing line between groups like the ACLU which do heavy work but have a lot of prestige, and non-prestigious organizations which don't do work demanding any kind of real talent on the part of the attorneys involved. This bright line you would have people accept simply does not exist in the real world.

For every organization like the ACLU, there are a hundred low-profile organizations that provide necessary legal aid services but aren't seen as prestigious or affording of prominent advancement opportunity or other economic self-interests. Many of these organizations do need equivalent counsel, because 1) so much of the law is adversarial, and 2) even in non-adversarial, transactional environments, it still takes highly competent and skilled counsel to be able to properly traverse the intricacies of the law. Even for situations where you refer to something as being "routine", like child custody, that's something that makes an enormous role in the person needing PI assitance--it's the life of their child and what if any role they get to keep in it--and given that child custody disputes are highly adversarial in nature, having less qualified and less effective counsel does often harm the indigent person being represented in ways that severely impact their lives. Given that, yes, these organizations do need "top talent" just as much as the guy on the other side who can afford a "top talent" attorney does. The fact that they don't have the economic resources to hire such "top talent" doesn't change the fact that it can be necessary for judicial fairness.

These organizations do not have the resources to pay enough to both compensate for the high debt resulting in acquiring a legal education and reasonable living expenses, let alone to compensate high enough to compete with the corporate firms and private representation they are often facing off against. Since this is an adversarial legal system, it's important for both sides to have somewhere close to even legal footing, and IBR as applied to PI lawyers at least helps restore that footing somewhat, even if it doesn't attempt to fully correct it through more extreme measures such as, say, the government attempting to salary-match these people.

Since the law should not be in a position to discriminate between specific organizations, there are two choices: Offer IBR broadly to people working at all PI organizations, even the ACLU, or offer none. Offering none on the basis that organizations like the ACLU could find adequate representation anyway is disproportionate, because you negatively impact many times the number of organizations you assume are able to function well on their own. Besides that, this does still help the ACLU, because there's a factor you're not really considering well in your equation, which is that the most willing people are often not the same thing as the best people for a job. The fact that any PI organization has lawyers willing to work there for the pittance salaries they pay doesn't mean that the representation there is sufficient, it just means that it's there.

Again, IBR is a less strong remedy than mandated salary increases funded by the government, which is what it would take to truly economically equalize legal representation between PI and private employers. You continue to confuse moral benefit with economic benefit; while there is a moral benefit from individuals to be gained by working for PI, the fact that they have to do so at such a significant economic disadvantage does affect the supply of such people, especially in a reality where high student loans plus incredibly low wages creates a scenario where even those who would gain a high moral satisfaction from doing a job are completely foreclosed from it economically, which is the reality of many PI jobs today.

IBR mitigates that sufficiently, and it does so on a sliding scale; the more money you make in your PI job, the more money you pay back. Since the federal gov't pays better than many PI orgs, this means people who work for the DOJ (for example) still pay back more than people in other PI organizations. Looking at the starting and ramping pay of people in the DOJ, and understanding that pay varies by locality so the answer can differ depending on where someone works and how fast they get promoted, it seems that someone who worked for the DOJ for 10 years would end up paying back half or more of their loan principal on $180K in loans.

As a result IBR provides less benefit for the more prestigious jobs which often tend to pay more, and more benefit for the less prestigious jobs which pay so little that living with any kind of debt is unworkable. This would continue to be true even if tuition dropped substantially; imagining someone paying only half of current typical tuition, or $20K/yr, would still result in over $120K in total student loans for 3 years of tuition and COL expenses. That's still an incredibly heavy burden for someone taking a $40K/yr job, one that's too heavy to be overcome by sheer will or moral benefit without some kind of assistance. And yet, that kind of education is necessary to do the job; you can't do legal work for indigent clients or other clients in need unless you get the law degree.

Because IBR begins to cancel itself out and cause more capital repayment as as pay rises, and because even significantly cutting tuition would not be sufficient to accomplish the economic balancing necessary, IBR does seem to be the most workable solution in providing additional economic benefit to help ensure that these PI organizations maintain a supply of not just the most willing talent, but of the capable talent that they need to be useful in the adversarial system that we have in this country.

Wooster33
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: How does IBR affect your decision?

Postby Wooster33 » Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:39 pm

It's no coincidence that all these groups are well-organized and good at lobbying. This is not public-interest legislation; seems like an interest-group bargain to me.


BINGO! But if you hear it from their perspective it's because how noble they are and thus they deserve some extra $$$ (even though no additional $$$ are needed to incent them to do the job). I wonder how they would feel if it were reversed--taxpayers are per se more noble, government employees are parasites, so let's give the 10 year IBR to private sector employees and the 25 year to public sector. And why? Because I think the private sector employees are more deserving. Of course that would just be evil.

Vanwinkle, that's a long ass post to say very little. But, as usual, your points are reasonable even if long-winded.

Other things being equal, you--as the client--want an outstanding lawyer even if it's for something routine and unexceptional. I agree. But the question is one of diminishing returns--a pretty good lawyer is going to do an acceptable job for their clients in a legal aid office. Period. Where is it written that every legal aid client needs a big law caliber lawyer? I don't know what sort of idealistic world you live in, but that is a terrible waste of legal talent and societal resources. That sort of legal talent should be directed to litigation where the stakes are much, much higher (and the issues more complex) than how much child support some baby's daddy has to pay. Sound cruel? Well, your world--where everybody has a world-class lawyer to work miracles for them, is fantastical. Like it or not, somebody has to have the mediocre attorneys. The good lawyers are going to follow the money (big law) and power (prestigious government positions like the DOJ or ACLU). And that is just where society should want its best lawyers--concentrated on the issues and litigation which affect the most people.

tx1987
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:21 pm

Re: How does IBR affect your decision?

Postby tx1987 » Mon May 10, 2010 1:41 pm

Wooster33 wrote:
It's no coincidence that all these groups are well-organized and good at lobbying. This is not public-interest legislation; seems like an interest-group bargain to me.


BINGO! But if you hear it from their perspective it's because how noble they are and thus they deserve some extra $$$ (even though no additional $$$ are needed to incent them to do the job). I wonder how they would feel if it were reversed--taxpayers are per se more noble, government employees are parasites, so let's give the 10 year IBR to private sector employees and the 25 year to public sector. And why? Because I think the private sector employees are more deserving. Of course that would just be evil.

Vanwinkle, that's a long ass post to say very little. But, as usual, your points are reasonable even if long-winded.

Other things being equal, you--as the client--want an outstanding lawyer even if it's for something routine and unexceptional. I agree. But the question is one of diminishing returns--a pretty good lawyer is going to do an acceptable job for their clients in a legal aid office. Period. Where is it written that every legal aid client needs a big law caliber lawyer? I don't know what sort of idealistic world you live in, but that is a terrible waste of legal talent and societal resources. That sort of legal talent should be directed to litigation where the stakes are much, much higher (and the issues more complex) than how much child support some baby's daddy has to pay. Sound cruel? Well, your world--where everybody has a world-class lawyer to work miracles for them, is fantastical. Like it or not, somebody has to have the mediocre attorneys. The good lawyers are going to follow the money (big law) and power (prestigious government positions like the DOJ or ACLU). And that is just where society should want its best lawyers--concentrated on the issues and litigation which affect the most people.


I just have to jump in here and say that you are missing everybody's individual points entirely.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: How does IBR affect your decision?

Postby vanwinkle » Mon May 10, 2010 5:03 pm

tx1987 wrote:I just have to jump in here and say that you are missing everybody's individual points entirely.

Don't worry about it, he got himself banned. Everyone knows he missed the point and he's gone now so it doesn't matter.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tx1990 and 4 guests