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

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
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 5:20 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
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.


Except you obviously don’t agree with me.

I don’t think of one or more job being created as a success. If you have 25% unemployment and, after increasing the money supply by a small portion, you have 24% unemployment that is not a successful policy. TARP worked because it avoided the systemic collapse of the financial system. The American Recovery Act worked because it partially filled the output gap, prevented a double-dip recession, and drastically reduced potential unemployment.

(For the record: Real GDP is measured using “nominal GDP – inflation.” You can use any measure you want. The U.S. gov’t uses deducts the rise in the Consumer Price Index from GDP to calculate real production. This is NOT the core index. It is the full index with food and energy included. Real GDP is only one measurement of growth and should be taken with a grain of salt in policy analysis – though it is very important.)

robotclubmember wrote: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.


I’ll give you a question that might help you understand your own question: Where is the recovery for auto-workers over the last 40 years?

I hope you see that cyclical and structural issues are inherently different. A recession is a cyclical phenomenon. Trying to say a recession exists because one sector of the economy is doing poorly is missing the entire point of economics. No one at the Federal Reserve should care if lawyers are doing poorly. They should care if the aggregate people are doing poorly or well. It’s about the aggregate good. Trying to cater to specific sectors is industrial policy and is a completely different branch of economic than business cycle theory (and macroeconomics for the most part.)

Regarding real wages: They have increased. This fits precisely with macroeconomic theory. Neoclassical theory suggests real wages decrease and employment remains the same. Keynesian theory (and monetarist) claim that real wages increase and employment decreases. This recession has fit precisely into Keynesian theory. It would significantly help labor markets if real wages decreased temporarily. This is another common misunderstanding among laypeople (and one of the major problems with neoclassical theory regarding business cycles.)

robotclubmember wrote: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.


I never said one job is a success or a recovery. The words you are using have STRICT definitions in economics. You cannot simply make up whatever you want and then say it is the same thing. All parties involved use the same definitions for clarity. In classical economics Karl Marx used the same language and theory as Adam Smith. In modern macroeconomics Milton Friedman used the same language as John Maynard Keynes. The word “strike” means only one thing in economic theory. The word “recession” is defined by the NBER. I have never read or talked to an economist that used “recession” differently than how I previously quoted. Any other use of the term is incorrect according to the science of economics (I hope you understand how flexible the NBER definition is if correctly used.)

The worst problem with your understanding of the issue is a complete misunderstanding of macroeconomics (Keynesian and Monetarist policy.) The government doesn’t care where growth is created for stimulus. Monetary policy, and to a smaller extent fiscal policy, leaves that completely for the markets to decide what's best. Keynes’ famously said it would be better to pay people to dig up money during a recession. Friedman gave the example of throwing money randomly out of a helicopter. The reason for this is double ledger accounting. When the money is spent it does not cease to exist. The business will deposit it in a financial institution. This will, literally, double the amount of money in a society. Then the bank lends the newly created money to more people while still owing the money (not currently being used) to the original business. VOILA! The multiplier effect in a vacuum. In reality the multiplier effect depends on many things (like liquidity preferences) but the general idea remains the same.


This is not philosophy. We are not talking about a “spirit of recovery.” People are unemployed during the greatest economic expansions. You are constantly mixing and matching separate ideas in a convoluted mess. This is not a normative argument about what is “wrong” or “right.” I’m simply stating what economic theory says “IS.”

If you wish to talk about what is “Right” that is a different argument. In that case there is no reason you should be pointing at news articles and then saying there is economic justification for your posts. There isn’t. Please reference works on ethics and morality. However, I really don’t see people having much sympathy for the legal sector. Only a very small special interest would sacrifice government resources for your so called “spirit of 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 5:29 pm

My comments on the auto workers were based on an analogy I made between the structural changes between these two markets in which both see increased outsourcing, temp use and automation. This is still primarily a legal discussion and just because you didn't care to read that doesn't mean it wasn't clear. I was not confusing structural and cyclical. I made the analogy before you did bozo, a few pages ago, read it if you like. It's a relevant point to discuss in a law school forum though. The economy is not strong enough to support anywhere near the capacity of lawyers being produced. It's fragile at best.

I think I made it clear about what I was arguing. I told you I agree with your theory. I basically said this is anything but a positive argument. Applying the same theory over and over to new circumstances probably should be questioned. Keynes wasn't right 100% of the time and wasn't a God. in the real world if you paid everyone to dig up money your economy would be fucked. There still is reality.

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 5:32 pm

Oh. And it remains to be seen if we have "avoided a double dip recession." A little early to make that claim, is it not? Because leading indicators aren't so hot. It's not easy to grow an economy with high unemployment, deficits and inflation, and with very little ammunition left for further quantitative easing or stimulus spending.

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 5:43 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
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.


I at least applaud you for trying to invent new definitions rather than incorrectly applying old ones. What you're implying is using employment data as a stronger indicator of a recession. Employment and wages are considered by the NBER when considering a recession. It is not based strictly on economic expansion (a common error.) Lawyers are an absolutely terrible laborer to study when considering the economy overall. The legal market, and lawyers, have vastly benefited over the last 40 years of economic growth. The lower and middle class have stayed relatively stagnant. A vast amount of wealth has been created but it has been more unequally distributed between classes. The people who benefited... Finance, Legal, etc... :lol: :lol: :lol: (I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong -- but it is very obvious statistically that this has happened.)

Here are the numbers for you:

Sources:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/se ... ta?cid=106
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/POP

After some basic arithmetic:

Over the last 4 quaters of available data (2010 Q1-Q4): 2.2529% Real GDP Per Capita percent change

All quarters are annualized for easier manipulation of data. IT should be noted that due to the recession this statistic will significantly vary depending on the time period used. I used 2010 because it was the most recent data available and it was the only sum of data I attempted.
Last edited by kapital98 on Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 5:55 pm

robotclubmember wrote:My comments on the auto workers were based on an analogy I made between the structural changes between these two markets in which both see increased outsourcing, temp use and automation. This is still primarily a legal discussion and just because you didn't care to read that doesn't mean it wasn't clear. I was not confusing structural and cyclical. I made the analogy before you did bozo, a few pages ago, read it if you like. It's a relevant point to discuss in a law school forum though. The economy is not strong enough to support anywhere near the capacity of lawyers being produced. It's fragile at best.

I think I made it clear about what I was arguing. I told you I agree with your theory. I basically said this is anything but a positive argument. Applying the same theory over and over to new circumstances probably should be questioned. Keynes wasn't right 100% of the time and wasn't a God. in the real world if you paid everyone to dig up money your economy would be fucked. There still is reality.


:lol:

If you had read Keynes you would have known that inflation expectations change over time. IN THE SHORT RUN prices are inelastic. In the long run such policies would lead to runaway inflation. Once again: You don't understand macroeconomics. The more you talk the more mistakes you make. Keynes didn't write about structural phenomena. He was a monetary economist.

That brings me to the second point I keep making. You constantly switch back and forth between completely different economic ideas. Structural issues are different than cyclical. You're confusing the legal market with the economic well being of the U.S. economy. You're like a kid who asks a question and when the teacher is trying to explain one idea you interrupt with a tangent that has little to do with the original question. The teacher tries to explain the next question but then you butt in with another tangent. You may think you obtuse reasoning is concise. It is absurd. If you had formal training in economics you may realize this. I assume you're an intelligent person. However, being intelligent is not sufficient to understanding economics -- let alone preaching the value of your wisdom. :)

I really hope you didn't take ECON101. If you did I want the name of the institution you studied at so I can warn others. :lol:

(I know I'm being rude but I think you deserve it.)

Zazelmaf
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:42 pm

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

Postby Zazelmaf » Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:57 pm

What does this mean for us students who will be transferring into the T2 but had awesome first year grades? Are we doomed?

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 5:57 pm

I'm done with this thread.

Robotclubmember, if you wish to mush disjointed economic ideas together and claim to "know what's really going on" go ahead. I hope my posts will serve as a small warning to your disciples.

Kapital98

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

.

Postby ihhwap1 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:31 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 7:42 pm

i'm very sure I never confused structural and cyclical. The focus of this discussion is the structural changes that make law a bad bet. Anyone familiar with my posts would tell you that I repeatedly note that law is a risky field for structural reasons independent of the economy. But I bring up the flaccid economy to note factors that further exacerbate the woes of the profession. To that end, employment is much more relevant to the discussion than growth, but all cyclical factors are relevant as well. I don't really enjoy defending errors I never made. I won't try to go toe to toe with you on economc theory, you know more. But economic theory was never the main point.

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

kapital98 wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:My comments on the auto workers were based on an analogy I made between the structural changes between these two markets in which both see increased outsourcing, temp use and automation. This is still primarily a legal discussion and just because you didn't care to read that doesn't mean it wasn't clear. I was not confusing structural and cyclical. I made the analogy before you did bozo, a few pages ago, read it if you like. It's a relevant point to discuss in a law school forum though. The economy is not strong enough to support anywhere near the capacity of lawyers being produced. It's fragile at best.

I think I made it clear about what I was arguing. I told you I agree with your theory. I basically said this is anything but a positive argument. Applying the same theory over and over to new circumstances probably should be questioned. Keynes wasn't right 100% of the time and wasn't a God. in the real world if you paid everyone to dig up money your economy would be fucked. There still is reality.


:lol:

If you had read Keynes you would have known that inflation expectations change over time. IN THE SHORT RUN prices are inelastic. In the long run such policies would lead to runaway inflation. Once again: You don't understand macroeconomics. The more you talk the more mistakes you make. Keynes didn't write about structural phenomena. He was a monetary economist.

That brings me to the second point I keep making. You constantly switch back and forth between completely different economic ideas. Structural issues are different than cyclical. You're confusing the legal market with the economic well being of the U.S. economy. You're like a kid who asks a question and when the teacher is trying to explain one idea you interrupt with a tangent that has little to do with the original question. The teacher tries to explain the next question but then you butt in with another tangent. You may think you obtuse reasoning is concise. It is absurd. If you had formal training in economics you may realize this. I assume you're an intelligent person. However, being intelligent is not sufficient to understanding economics -- let alone preaching the value of your wisdom. :)

I really hope you didn't take ECON101. If you did I want the name of the institution you studied at so I can warn others. :lol:

(I know I'm being rude but I think you deserve it.)


i think you're an interesting character. keep doing what you're doing because it's interesting discussion. but keep in mind i never said inflation expectations didn't change over time. i also never said keynes wrote about structural phenomena. i never confused structural and cyclical. your argument tactics is based off of saying things that are false that i never said, and then explaining to me why i'm wrong, in the hypothetical scenario in which i said any of those things. i can't even see the references in my own quote from which you would think i said short-term inflation was not inelastic. you are not my teacher. you are the kid that comes in here, puts his resume at the bottom of his post, has this insane analogy that compares me to a kid after explaining stuff i never disputed, and then the kicker, saying that you need to know the name of my institution to advise others not to go there.

oh hello kettle.

enjoy your stay at the prestigious UC Hastings, i hear the california job market is booming. so if you're such a god damn genius, why are you going to hasTTTings? you're the one who brought it up.
Last edited by robotclubmember on Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:06 am, 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 8:06 pm

one other point. Your century old economic theories didn't even come close to predicting the fallout of 2008. I agree with your textbook knowledge. I'd love to see you put all that knowledge to good use by combining it with original thought. The reason economists are often useless in detecting or preventing economic problems is that they have a tendency to focus on explaining the past. You hijacked the thread to turn it into the thing you know about and tried to make it seem relevant by framing it as if I believed the opposite. I agree with the knowledge but I'm thinking about the future of the legal profession. I'm not being a douche by staying in scope.

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 8:18 pm

The fact of the matter is that attending law schools has become a very risky endeavor. The costs of attendance are commonly around 60K per year and, in some schools such as Fordham, up to 75K per year. To make matters worse, there are to many law schools in the US graduating too many new JDs. For instance, there have been about 50K new JDs per year pursuing about 25K openings per year in the last few years. In other words, half new JDs must end up either unemployed, working outside the legal field, or hiking the Appalachian trail. While recent recession have exacerbated these problems, they have been there for many years and unlikely to disappear even if the US experiences a robust economic expansion in the near future.

User avatar
NiccoloA
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:46 pm

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

Postby NiccoloA » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:00 pm

Jobs shrink in a recession. No kidding.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

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

Postby Patriot1208 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:11 pm

NiccoloA wrote:Jobs shrink in a recession. No kidding.

But, unfortunately, we may well be seeing a complete restructuring of the profession that results in a permanent shrinkage of jobs.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

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

Postby prezidentv8 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:16 pm

Patriot1208 wrote:shrinkage


:oops: :mrgreen:

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

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

Postby birdlaw117 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:03 pm

This is amazing. The amount of douchiness and intellectual masturbation ITT is off the charts.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests