Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:46 pm

Whooooaaa then I stand correct and apologies. I haven't read this yet but will do so now. I can appreciate when someone tells you "you're wrong here's why" (and actually explain why). Ty.

ihhwap1
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 2:37 pm

.

Postby ihhwap1 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:54 pm

.
Last edited by ihhwap1 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:55 pm

kapital98 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:Pretty far from fundamentally okay! The GDP has expanded at an annual rate of less than 1% this year and less than 2% less year, and what little growth there has been has been outpaced by inflation which has exceeded GDP growth.


Stop being bad at life. The reported GDP growth rate is real GDP (ie: net of inflation).


Rayiner, you have been one of the voices of reason on this ridiculous thread.

Robotclubmember has no understanding of economic theory. His chain of causality for macroeconomics, in particular business cycle theory, is obtuse. His (non-existent) understanding of monetary theory is troubling. Further, his understanding of labor market theory, and marginalism in general, is particularly troubling when discussing the legal field.

To Address Specifics

The recession occurred because of increasing fragility in the financial sector. An expansionary phase occurred during the mid 2000's due to increasing leveraging due to new financial instruments (ex: those used in real estate.) This led to higher growth but at the cost of economic stability. The federal reserve did not pop the bubble because it was afraid of decreasing economic growth when the threat of financial instability was unknown. If the collapse in the real estate market had been contained (as neoclassical theory suggests) their would have been no problem. This would have been the equivalent to creative destruction. However, when the real estate sector fell (a tiny portion of the economy) this threatened the ENTIRE financial sector (essentially the entire economy.) (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_ ... le+economy)

The growth that occurred during the "bubble" was in every way REAL. The only part that was imaginary was in the real estate sector. The problem here, and which robotclubmember clearly doesn't understand, is that a decrease in aggregate demand would decrease real wealth. The collapse of the financial sector would lead to decreased investment across the board due to uncertainty (animal spirits.) This would cause a negative multiplier effect due to the nature of double ledger accounting. During a normal recession the Federal Reserve could increase the money supply indirectly by changing the discount rate and buying Treasury bonds.

Unfortunately, a liquidity crisis occurred. This means that the IS-LM model no longer holds because preference for liquidity is extremely high. In this situation the only way to continue to have growth, and keep the REAL growth that occurred during the bubble, is to increase government purchases. In this sense you can have your cake and eat it too. The basic theory has been around since 1936 (http://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Em ... 726&sr=1-1.)

This is a jobless recovery because of the lingering liquidity crisis and changing structural elements in the economy. Historically, it takes many years after a major financial shock for investment to return to normal (http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Differe ... 590&sr=8-1) On the other hand an interesting shift has occurred over the last two decades as our economy has shifted from manufacturing to service. It generally takes longer for employment to recover after a recession than before. This is not due to cyclical factors (i.e. the recession itself.) Rather, it is due to structural changes in the economy.

For the record:

1) The gov't does not determine when a recession/depression (there is no difference in economic analysis) occurs. The National Bureau of Economic Research determines "a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales." (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html.) The NBER is a non-partisan organization that has published well renowned books from both conservative and liberal economists.

2) I read Moody's economic analysis department Dismal Scientist on a regular basis. Over the last 3 years they have consistently stated the exact same thing I have just said. They consistently urged for more stimulus throughout the recession -- in particular government purchases over tax cuts (ex: https://www.economy.com/home/login/ds_p ... 1107291339) The analysis of Moody's is DIRECTLY in opposition to your statements.

3) The government made money off of TARP. The original TARP plan was barely used. After the Obama administration took over Geithner drastically changed Paulson's original plan that was passed by Congress. Even then, it was an insurance policy made by the government to prevent systemic collapse of the financial sector. It was NOT stimulus. All the money (plus a profit) came back to the government.

Kapital98
B.A. Economics, Political Science
President of Economics Society
Member of Federal Reserve Challenge
20 page term paper on TARP for Legislative Process
1.5 hour presentation on the causes of the Great Depression (extremely similar to current recession.)
All the books mentioned above were reviewed by me on Amazon.

Robotclubmember, reading news articles, that don't discuss economic theory, will get you no closer to understanding the underlying phenomena. Please understand this before you go off spouting your supreme understanding of economics.


LOLOLOLO.

Should I copy and paste my resume now??

I never said that stimulus spending was a bad idea. There should have been more. But also, the money should have been used in a way that resulted in real economic growth, not just getting funneled to local gov'ts through a time-consuming grant process (when time was truly of the essence) where it could sit unused in their coffers while they mulled over what to do with it or get used in useless construction projects. An example that comes to mind is in my state of Ohio, we got $400M for a high-speed train, that our governor then returned after sitting on it for a year. The stimulus package was designed in such a way so that the money was incapable of truly stimulating anything. The balls never dropped out of the stimulus package's hairless asshole.

I love how you say things like "This is a jobless recovery because of the lingering liquidity crisis and changing structural elements in the economy. " So you are basically rephrasing what I already said, then portraying it as being in disagreement with what I've been known to say repeatedly. In fact the structural changes are why my outlook is so bleak.

I like how you just copy pasta'd sections of your 20 page thesis that don't even apply to the discussion at hand. And then portray it as disagreement with me. We are in agreement with the cause of the recession. The point at issue is not that, which is what the body of your post was dedicated too: looking at old known facts. The point at issue is, is this truly a recovery? And what is the outlook going forward? I say no, and shitty. If you want to talk about that instead of making canned talking points where you recycle irrelevant arguments from a thesis which is not under discussion, be my guest.
Last edited by robotclubmember on Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:56 pm

ihhwap1 wrote:Legitimately interesting post, kapital98. Kudos.


Congrats, you got dazzled by substanceless fact-regurgitation that you probably don't even understand.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby scammedhard » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:01 pm

kapital98 wrote:Robotclubmember, reading news articles, that don't discuss economic theory, will get you no closer to understanding the underlying phenomena. Please understand this before you go off spouting your supreme understanding of economics.

But you have not addressed his main points:

1) There is a massive glut of lawyers that is likely to persist for many years;
2) This glut was apparent before the recession and made far worse by it;
3) The recent recovery is "weak to non-existent," thereby further contributing to the massive glut of lawyers.

MOST IMPORTANTLY

4) Because of this massive glut of lawyers, it is foolish to dump 200K to pursue law school.
5) Because of this massive glut of lawyers, one is unlikely to find a legal job.

kapital98: lets' discuss these issues and not "are we in a recovery yet?"

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:06 pm

scammedhard wrote:
kapital98 wrote:Robotclubmember, reading news articles, that don't discuss economic theory, will get you no closer to understanding the underlying phenomena. Please understand this before you go off spouting your supreme understanding of economics.

But you have not addressed his main points:

1) There is a massive glut of lawyers that is likely to persist for many years;
2) This glut was apparent before the recession and made far worse by it;
3) The recent recovery is "weak to non-existent," thereby further contributing to the massive glut of lawyers.

MOST IMPORTANTLY

4) Because of this massive glut of lawyers, it is foolish to pursue law school.


Thank you. Imagine some people in a law school forum wanting to stick to the substance rather than a huge self-ego stroke. Coming onto a forum which is discussing the future outlook for the legal market and regurgitating facts from a thesis you wrote on historical causes of why we are in a recession doesn't really help the conversation as much as your ego (putting your resume at the bottom makes it pretty transparent what's going on here). Economic discussions are relevant, but the scope of your angle is the rearview mirror which honestly isn't even a point at issue, and which we are generally in agreement on anyway if you followed the discussion.

What I'm saying is, the economic outlook doesn't look great, which bodes poorly for a profession that is rife with structural problems which are sui generis.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:17 pm

kapital98 wrote:Further, his understanding of labor market theory, and marginalism in general, is particularly troubling when discussing the legal field.


Let's start with this.

User avatar
ThomasMN
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby ThomasMN » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:24 pm

You know, I wrote a lot and then decided there is a much shorter answer to this: Stop being such a a narcissist in thinking that you will be the one to save us all. You're not doing anyone any favors by trying to intellectually masturbate about how you know that it is all going to shit and not getting better.

That all being said, isn't the real argument not about pursuing law school, but if it is smart going into serious debt to get a JD in the first place and what is the best balance of debt to job possibility. I will be straight honest, looking at employment figures even the T-14 are not a great deal when you are paying sticker.

User avatar
ThomasMN
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby ThomasMN » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:25 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
ihhwap1 wrote:Legitimately interesting post, kapital98. Kudos.


Congrats, you got dazzled by substanceless fact-regurgitation that you probably don't even understand.


Congrats, you're a douche.

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby kapital98 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:27 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
LOLOLOLO.

Should I copy and paste my resume now??

I never said that stimulus spending was a bad idea. There should have been more. But also, the money should have been used in a way that resulted in real economic growth, not just getting funneled to local gov'ts through a time-consuming grant process (when time was truly of the essence) where it could sit unused in their coffers while they mulled over what to do with it or get used in useless construction projects. An example that comes to mind is in my state of Ohio, we got $400M for a high-speed train, that our governor then returned after sitting on it for a year. The stimulus package was designed in such a way so that the money was incapable of truly stimulating anything. The balls never dropped out of the stimulus package's hairless asshole.

I love how you say things like "This is a jobless recovery because of the lingering liquidity crisis and changing structural elements in the economy. " So you are basically rephrasing what I already said, then portraying it as being in disagreement with what I've been known to say repeatedly. In fact the structural changes are why my outlook is so bleak.

I like how you just copy pasta'd sections of your 20 page thesis that don't even apply to the discussion at hand. And then portray it as disagreement with me. We are in agreement with the cause of the recession. The point at issue is not that, which is what the body of your post was dedicated too: looking at old known facts. The point at issue is, is this truly a recovery? And what is the outlook going forward? I say no, and shitty. If you want to talk about that instead of making canned talking points where you recycle irrelevant arguments from a thesis which is not under discussion, be my guest.


You’re missing the point of the marginal propensity to consume and the multiplier effect. It doesn’t matter WHAT the gov’t spends money on. Only that it spends money. This is because of double ledger accounting and inelastic prices/wages in the short run. Having projects that create positive externalities is smart from a long run perspective but irrelevant for the short run. Even if the money is wasted on, say, extravagant feasts, real growth still occurs in the rest of the economy due to the multiplier effect. The economy is no worse off than if the recession did not occur. Creating long run positive externalities will increase future growth but in no way change the nature of preventing economic loss due to the recession.

The stimulus plan was ~1/3 state grants to prevent recessionary state cuts, 1/3 tax cuts, and 1/3 gov’t expenditures. The expenditures took time to implement but by far had the largest multiplier and greatest effect on GDP and employment. THE STIMULUS WORKED. There was a $2 trillion output gap and the stimulus only amounted to a little more than $800 billion. To say it didn’t work and it wasn’t enough are two completely different things. There is considerable evidence within academic journals and Moody’s to support my statements (they will even give you specific multiplier values for each type of stimulus if you would like.)

Your meandering, and ignorant, structural argument is not the same as economists have been writing about over the last decade. The current recession is VERY different from the structural changes occurring in the economy. The demand of legal education is closely aligned with business cycle theory and similar to discussions regarding aggregate demand. However, the supply side of the market is very different from the aggregate economy. The best way to explain the legal market is to use a combination of New Keynesian theory with a Cobweb labor model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobweb_model.) The general labor market is NOT going through a cobweb cycle. A lag in the labor market is very different from simultaneous lags in the labor supply and wages.

I did not copy and paste anything from former papers or discussions. This is just the most elementary topics of the last several years regarding monetary policy (the rest is necessary to understand monetary policy.) I listed my former qualifications so you know I’m not just pulling stuff from thin air.

To answer your questions:

This is TRULY A RECOVERY. More could have been done to alleviate the current problem and make the PAST recession much smaller. Unless something completely insane happens (ex: gov’t default) we will not have another recession (“double-dip”.)

The outlook going forward is a feeble, but consistent, recovery. Gov’ts across the OECD will continue to cut purchases and this will hurt aggregate demand. Fortunately, the private sector will slowly pick up the decrease in government purchases with increased investment. This will not be a miraculous recovery that we saw in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Growth WILL be sufficient to increase wealth beyond inflation and population growth. Expect economic growth to be in ~2-2.5% for the next several years. When looking at employment it is important to realize the U6 rate is decreasing even though the U3 rate is not steadily improving.

The best place for economic statistics is FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data.) Here is real GDP (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/se ... ta?cid=106)

User avatar
ThomasMN
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby ThomasMN » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:27 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
kapital98 wrote:Further, his understanding of labor market theory, and marginalism in general, is particularly troubling when discussing the legal field.


Let's start with this.


You know, it is hilarious how much you remind me of Christian Fundamentalists. You know the truth and will tell us all about how it should be. Anything said by anyone else MUST be false, because you know the one true path: T-14. Honestly, if you were a decent CPA you would be much better off staying in your current profession. I know quite a few CPAs that make bank and don't have to go 200K into debt to make a living. Of course, if your decision to law school is about more than just how much money you will make most of your argument is completely worthless as just about anyone could just say, " I want to be a lawyer for the intellectual stimulate," or any nonsense along those lines.

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby kapital98 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:32 pm

A quick note: The U3 rate of unemployment for the legal profession shows a ~2% unemployment rate. The U6 rate of unemployment, counting discouraged workers, is a better indicator of unemployment during a recession. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics do not have a % of unemployed workers by sector for this statistic. I assume the legal market would be MUCH higher than ~2% unemployment and would more closely align with the news articles commonly posted on these boards.

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby kapital98 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:35 pm

ThomasMN wrote:You know, I wrote a lot and then decided there is a much shorter answer to this: Stop being such a a narcissist in thinking that you will be the one to save us all. You're not doing anyone any favors by trying to intellectually masturbate about how you know that it is all going to shit and not getting better.


Can we be friends? :D

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby scammedhard » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:37 pm

kapital98:

OK, "Growth WILL be sufficient to increase wealth beyond inflation and population growth," and technically we are in a recovery.

Now, do you believe that in 3 years the supply and demand for JDs will be in equilibrium? In other words, will be glut for lawyers continue?

I say NO and YES, respectively. Even with robust economic growth, law schools are simply creating way too many new JDs, thus going to law school is a bad idea if one seeks employment and a return on the investment.
Last edited by scammedhard on Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
ThomasMN
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby ThomasMN » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:38 pm

kapital98 wrote:
ThomasMN wrote:You know, I wrote a lot and then decided there is a much shorter answer to this: Stop being such a a narcissist in thinking that you will be the one to save us all. You're not doing anyone any favors by trying to intellectually masturbate about how you know that it is all going to shit and not getting better.


Can we be friends? :D


Yes : )

User avatar
ThomasMN
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby ThomasMN » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:43 pm

scammedhard wrote:kapital98:

OK, "Growth WILL be sufficient to increase wealth beyond inflation and population growth," and technically we are in a recovery.

Now, do you believe that in 3 years the supply and demand for JDs will be in equilibrium? In other words, will be glut for lawyers continue?

I say NO. Even with robust economic growth law schools are simply creating way too many new JDs, thus going to law school is a bad idea if one seeks employment and a return on the investment.


Under your argument all law schools are equal, they are not. Some people try to make this argument in the extreme: T-14 or bust, but it does hold weight. I don't think we'll have to worry about shortages in lawyers anytime soon, but that doesn't mean that a career in law is not a possibility. A law student with a good plan, little debt, and a realistic view of the future can still do well. You look at this question in such a binary fashion that it is scary.

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby kapital98 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:48 pm

ThomasMN wrote:
scammedhard wrote:kapital98:

OK, "Growth WILL be sufficient to increase wealth beyond inflation and population growth," and technically we are in a recovery.

Now, do you believe that in 3 years the supply and demand for JDs will be in equilibrium? In other words, will be glut for lawyers continue?

I say NO. Even with robust economic growth law schools are simply creating way too many new JDs, thus going to law school is a bad idea if one seeks employment and a return on the investment.


Under your argument all law schools are equal, they are not.

A law student with a good plan, little debt, and a realistic view of the future can still do well. You look at this question in such a binary fashion that it is scary.


This is another good point. It's nice to see not everyone believes the sky-is-falling mantra.

I'm going offline for a little while. It should be interesting to see what Robotclubmember tries to come up with as a response.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby scammedhard » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:48 pm

ThomasMN wrote:Under your argument all law schools are equal, they are not. Some people try to make this argument in the extreme: T-14 or bust, but it does hold weight. I don't think we'll have to worry about shortages in lawyers anytime soon, but that doesn't mean that a career in law is not a possibility. A law student with a good plan, little debt, and a realistic view of the future can still do well. You look at this question in such a binary fashion that it is scary.

You should stop accusing me of "crimes" I have not committed. When did I look at this as "T14 or bust" or any other "binary fashion"?

So, you are saying that he massive glut of lawyers will persist, even with a recovery, but that "A law student with a good plan, little debt, and a realistic view of the future can still do well."

Right? Then we are in agreement. I do believe, however, that 0Ls (and TLSers) greatly overestimate their ability to have a "good plan, little debt, and a realistic view of the future."

User avatar
ThomasMN
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby ThomasMN » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:55 pm

scammedhard wrote:
ThomasMN wrote:Under your argument all law schools are equal, they are not. Some people try to make this argument in the extreme: T-14 or bust, but it does hold weight. I don't think we'll have to worry about shortages in lawyers anytime soon, but that doesn't mean that a career in law is not a possibility. A law student with a good plan, little debt, and a realistic view of the future can still do well. You look at this question in such a binary fashion that it is scary.

You should stop accusing me of "crimes" I have not committed. When did I look at this as "T14 or bust" or any other "binary fashion."

So, you are saying that he massive glut of lawyers will persist, even with a recovery, but that "A law student with a good plan, little debt, and a realistic view of the future can still do well."

Right? Then we are in agreement. I do believe, however, that 0Ls (and TLSers) greatly overestimate their ability to have a "good plan, little debt, and a realistic view of the future."


Human beings in general overestimate their ability to have a good plan. I can at least testify to myself though. I have zero debt from college or otherwise. My first year of law school and cost of living will be paid for. The most I will have to pay is for two years of school and cost of living. I'm not looking to go big law in NYC or Chicago, but to practice in Minnesota.

I think what people should be promoting is how law school students and 0ls can understand their student debt better and get a grip on what their interest rates mean for them. Instead of just waving around the fear stick maybe some could actually take the time to help people with making the decision. Not just saying "Don't GO!!!! Worst Decision Ever!!!!" That is what I mean by the general binary view that people have on here about law school.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby scammedhard » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:08 pm

ThomasMN wrote:Human beings in general overestimate their ability to have a good plan. I can at least testify to myself though. I have zero debt from college or otherwise. My first year of law school and cost of living will be paid for. The most I will have to pay is for two years of school and cost of living. I'm not looking to go big law in NYC or Chicago, but to practice in Minnesota.

I think what people should be promoting is how law school students and 0ls can understand their student debt better and get a grip on what their interest rates mean for them. Instead of just waving around the fear stick maybe some could actually take the time to help people with making the decision. Not just saying "Don't GO!!!! Worst Decision Ever!!!!" That is what I mean by the general binary view that people have on here about law school.


Firstly, as a general guideline, I have been giving this advice on TLS:

One should only attend law school if attending a Tier 1 school (or the state flagship school) WITH substantial scholarship awards (and/or in-state tuition), or T14 at sticker under certain circumstances.

Tier 1 has only 50 or so schools, so that leaves us with 150 or so "should not go" schools.

That hardly sounds like "Don't GO!!!! Worst Decision Ever!!!!", right?

You should not take this tread as a personal attack. It is meant to warn prospective students or lurkers about the perils of attending law school. What's so wrong about letting others know that the labor market for lawyers is in shambles? What's wrong with discussing that?

EDIT

Do you realize how many people go to TTTs every year AT STICKER? Come on, do the math. And a lot of that is because people believe law school is a great investment. Well, in the majority of cases, probably the vast majority actually, it is not.
Last edited by scammedhard on Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:38 pm

kapital98 wrote:THE STIMULUS WORKED.


I agree with the multiplier effect though, to you, you define one job or more being created as a success. Economically that's true. In theory. But in reality all I see is the opportunity cost of not pursuing a more effective stimulus. And I therefore don't see it as a success. See I agree with you but we are on a different page philosophically at a level beyond the economic understanding of this. Where I will acknowledge I was incorrect however, was in confusing GDP as being growth net core inflation as opposed to growth less GDP deflator, as scammedhard pointed out.

I agree that we will have very feeble growth as you described. I also agree with the reasoning you gave. And further, I agree that this meets the criteria of a recovery that is commonly established in textbooks. I just disagree with saying we are in a recovery until we are at least at parity with the base year. I mentioned that before. The reason is because I live in reality, and in reality, everyone is feeling the effects of a recession, no matter what you call it. You call this a "recovery" and in economic terms that is correct. But where is the recovery for lawyers whose starting salaries fell 20% in 2010? You see, this simply isn't a good economy for lawyers. This is not a recovery for lawyers. And it's not a recovery for average people who are facing unemployment and falling real wages.

What you are saying appears theoretically sound. To you, if the stimulus package created one job, it would in theory be a success. To you, if GDP went up .1% it would theoretically be a recovery. To me those are not things that I consider a recovery in any meaningful way (again, I think of the opportunity cost of bad policy). You're debating this using a set of economic terms, and I'm using the same terms but applying them to the realities of the legal market, and that is why we aren't on the same page. I think you're arrogant but I don't think you're theoretically wrong. I think that the application of our terms is different. The word "strike" means different things to a baseball player, a bowler, and a union organizer. Don't tell me I'm wrong because I say we're in a recession still and you have a definition that makes that false, because I already established what it means to me pages ago and we're not using the same definition. And don't argue that I'm making up my own definitions because I'm not. The bottomline is that your statistics would say that we were recovering in 2009-2010. The exact opposite is reflected in the job market, real wages, and especially the legal market. This is a book recovery and that's been acknowledged, but does not satisfy the spirit of a recovery.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:43 pm

ThomasMN wrote:You know, I wrote a lot and then decided there is a much shorter answer to this: Stop being such a a narcissist in thinking that you will be the one to save us all. You're not doing anyone any favors by trying to intellectually masturbate about how you know that it is all going to shit and not getting better.


I believe that by creating this threads and initiating the discussion about shit legal prospects, I have done favors. That isn't tantamount to saving anyone. But opening up a discussion that leads in with a current event that is relevant to our careers actually is doing people favors. I'm not the narcissist putting my resume at the bottom of my threads.

I've also acknowledged that it will get better but will take several years and some real market adjustments first.

jbwez121
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:57 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby jbwez121 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:07 pm

I am a bit late on this, but I agree that at least some of the law students are out of touch/in denial about schooling. I decided myself not to go to school (based on my debt level, and potential job problems). When I spoke to fellow peers regarding the same (who are now 3L's) all of them didn't have anything lined up after school or even knew where to begin seeking employment. I found it odd that they challenged me on my decision and stated that 150k in debt from a TTT or TTTT is "good debt" and that the "hard work" they are doing will pay off. While I admire their optimism, I fear they have bought the fudge unemployment stats and won't really think about everything till 9 months after graduation when the bills roll in.

Bottom line: The decision for a student to attend or not is up to them, but they should do plenty of research and make an informed decision (and not base their decision off of sketchy employment figures). Too many assume Law leads to the 160k salary right out for everything when in reality the spread of salaries is much further apart....

User avatar
ThomasMN
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby ThomasMN » Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:41 pm

I feel a lot of it is fed by that notion that education is good so more education must be better. It's kind of common for people today to simply agree with the fact that debt for an education is okay. I have a friend that went 100K into debt to get a bachelor's degree in communications!

Also scrammed, I do apologize for lumping you in with robotclub. I agree, it is insane how many people out there go to TTT law schools and pay sticker. I would be afraid to attend a TTT with a full scholarship! To be honest though I think a lot of the higher education programs out there are terrible deals in terms of economic opportunities.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode

Postby robotclubmember » Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:13 pm

ThomasMN wrote:I feel a lot of it is fed by that notion that education is good so more education must be better. It's kind of common for people today to simply agree with the fact that debt for an education is okay. I have a friend that went 100K into debt to get a bachelor's degree in communications!

Also scrammed, I do apologize for lumping you in with robotclub. I agree, it is insane how many people out there go to TTT law schools and pay sticker. I would be afraid to attend a TTT with a full scholarship! To be honest though I think a lot of the higher education programs out there are terrible deals in terms of economic opportunities.


what's so bad about being "lumped in with me?" my argument is this: the people saying we are no longer in a recession are using definitions that are bordering on nearly a century old. maybe circumstances have changed. what i'm saying isn't wild. a new phrase "growth recession" (which is a more honest and less nuanced phrase than "jobless recovery") has been coined to describe this. maybe your obsolete categorizations aren't very meaningful or useful when they fail to reflect the realities of the people living and functioning in the economy. fundamentally, economics isn't about money but the implications of the rational choices of people, and we're living in a reality in which it appears people are being set further back (if we're staying on topic, I think that's certainly true for lawyers). and that the outlook going forward doesn't look so hot.

another point. i'd be curious to know what tho growth in GDP per capita is. because if our annualized GDP growth for 2011 is 0.85%, and population is 307M, then a 1.3M increase in the population over the last six months would mean there was 0% GDP per capita growth. estimates project 2M increase in population per year, so we're just under that, but once you factor that in annualized GDP growth on a per capita basis is 0.2%. In economic terms this is a "recovery" but is that something to be proud of? is that the sign of a "fundamentally okay" economy? Considering how far we fell and how far we appear to still be falling, it seems disingenuous to ignore reality in favor of obsolete theoretical definitions.
Last edited by robotclubmember on Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], carlos_danger, sirggscott, Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests