RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
lajohn
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby lajohn » Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:09 pm

Go to a top 6, or if you get a scholarship. Otherwise, it's a pretty big risk.

User avatar
DallasCowboy
Posts: 650
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:47 am

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby DallasCowboy » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:14 pm

bump

User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby beachbum » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:38 pm

DallasCowboy wrote:bump


FML.

User avatar
swc65
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:27 am

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby swc65 » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:56 pm

beachbum wrote:
DallasCowboy wrote:bump


FML.



Agreed. This is just terrible, again.

User avatar
kedinik
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:14 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby kedinik » Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:40 pm

HarlandBassett wrote:
TommyK wrote:
bukhela wrote:Is the recession good for poor people who still have jobs, but bad for others who have lost their jobs? During a recession, gas price goes down because people drive less. The cost of consumer goods also goes down because the cost of transportating those goods is less, and because people spend less money and buy less. This makes consumer goods more affordable for poor people who still have jobs. Agree or disagree?


There's also less of an incentive for their employer to provide high wages and strong benefits packages. Also the stress of knowing that if you do get laid off that there aren't a surplus of jobs is something that is difficult to quantify, but should be factored into the equation. I don't believe the deflationary effect was great enough to impact me in a substantial way. Bottom line - bad for everybody, just worse for those who are unemployed.

most wages are "sticky." economics 101


Economics is exceptionally prone to looking incredibly incorrect whenever you need to apply basic principles to real life, as with this recession where unemployment is not terribly high but wages have collapsed in many industries and stagnated their growth at the very least.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby ResolutePear » Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:43 pm

Behavioral Economics surely explains everything, then!

User avatar
FattyMcFatFat
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby FattyMcFatFat » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:21 pm

kedinik wrote:
HarlandBassett wrote:
TommyK wrote:
bukhela wrote:Is the recession good for poor people who still have jobs, but bad for others who have lost their jobs? During a recession, gas price goes down because people drive less. The cost of consumer goods also goes down because the cost of transportating those goods is less, and because people spend less money and buy less. This makes consumer goods more affordable for poor people who still have jobs. Agree or disagree?


There's also less of an incentive for their employer to provide high wages and strong benefits packages. Also the stress of knowing that if you do get laid off that there aren't a surplus of jobs is something that is difficult to quantify, but should be factored into the equation. I don't believe the deflationary effect was great enough to impact me in a substantial way. Bottom line - bad for everybody, just worse for those who are unemployed.

most wages are "sticky." economics 101


Economics is exceptionally prone to looking incredibly incorrect whenever you need to apply basic principles to real life, as with this recession where unemployment is not terribly high but wages have collapsed in many industries and stagnated their growth at the very least.


Did you actually mean to say that low wages directly stagnate an entity's growth... Or to imply that actual unemployment is not much higher than propagated when quantification is not arbitrarily constrained to those that have not yet "left" the labor force? :?

User avatar
kedinik
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:14 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby kedinik » Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:44 pm

FattyMcFatFat wrote:Did you actually mean to say that low wages directly stagnate an entity's growth... Or to imply that actual unemployment is not much higher than propagated when quantification is not arbitrarily constrained to those that have not yet "left" the labor force? :?


I meant exactly what I wrote and neither of your guesses have anything to do with it.

"stagnated their growth" refers to the wages in industries where those wages have not outright decreased.

Generally employers are keeping or even hiring employees but slashing wages or forestalling raises to compensate.

Which makes "wages are sticky so instead recessions cost jobs" look like pretty weak 'basic' economic theory.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:50 pm

kedinik wrote:
FattyMcFatFat wrote:Did you actually mean to say that low wages directly stagnate an entity's growth... Or to imply that actual unemployment is not much higher than propagated when quantification is not arbitrarily constrained to those that have not yet "left" the labor force? :?


I meant exactly what I wrote and neither of your guesses have anything to do with it.

"stagnated their growth" refers to the wages in industries where those wages have not outright decreased.

Generally employers are keeping or even hiring employees but slashing wages or forestalling raises to compensate.

Which makes "wages are sticky so instead recessions cost jobs" look like pretty weak 'basic' economic theory.

QFDoesn'tunderstandlockstepcompensation.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby ResolutePear » Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:13 pm

Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:QFDoesn'tunderstandlockstepcompensation.


I need help with lockstep compensation. Help.

User avatar
FattyMcFatFat
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby FattyMcFatFat » Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:43 pm

kedinik wrote:
FattyMcFatFat wrote:Did you actually mean to say that low wages directly stagnate an entity's growth... Or to imply that actual unemployment is not much higher than propagated when quantification is not arbitrarily constrained to those that have not yet "left" the labor force? :?


I meant exactly what I wrote and neither of your guesses have anything to do with it.

"stagnated their growth" refers to the wages in industries where those wages have not outright decreased.

Generally employers are keeping or even hiring employees but slashing wages or forestalling raises to compensate.

Which makes
"NOMINAL wages are sticky so instead recessions cost jobs"look like pretty weak 'basic' economic theory.


FTFY. Also:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2011/pdf/ERP-2011.pdf

See page 246. There has not been a single year that nominal earnings have declined.

Also see the first column of page 244, where it is clear that employment declined drastically from 2008-2010.

Please return to your MSNBC and stop pretending that you understand what the fuck you're talking about.

User avatar
kedinik
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:14 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby kedinik » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:42 pm

FattyMcFatFat wrote:
kedinik wrote:
FattyMcFatFat wrote:Did you actually mean to say that low wages directly stagnate an entity's growth... Or to imply that actual unemployment is not much higher than propagated when quantification is not arbitrarily constrained to those that have not yet "left" the labor force? :?


I meant exactly what I wrote and neither of your guesses have anything to do with it.

"stagnated their growth" refers to the wages in industries where those wages have not outright decreased.

Generally employers are keeping or even hiring employees but slashing wages or forestalling raises to compensate.

Which makes
"NOMINAL wages are sticky so instead recessions cost jobs"look like pretty weak 'basic' economic theory.


FTFY. Also:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2011/pdf/ERP-2011.pdf

See page 246. There has not been a single year that nominal earnings have declined.

Also see the first column of page 244, where it is clear that employment declined drastically from 2008-2010.

Please return to your MSNBC and stop pretending that you understand what the fuck you're talking about.


Hi.

I was responding directly to someone who claimed "wages are sticky, basic econ lol".

But hey having a heart attack about nominal wages, that was pretty cute.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby ResolutePear » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:44 pm

THEY JUST INVENTED A ROBOT THAT CAN PRACTICE LAW WITH 99% ACCURACY!

WE'RE ALL DOOMED

jessaM
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:10 am

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby jessaM » Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:19 am

I agree that recession lowers prices of daily commodities in result of less demands. However, we can't still deny that recession brings about uncountable negative impacts to our daily lives. In this time of crisis, money is always the last resort to survive. That is why people nowadays are more careful in spending money. In terms of using credit cards, spenders become savers. Analysts say the recession has bred greater responsibility in the spending habits of most customers. Source for this article: LINK REMOVED

User avatar
FattyMcFatFat
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby FattyMcFatFat » Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:27 am

kedinik wrote:
FattyMcFatFat wrote:
kedinik wrote:
FattyMcFatFat wrote:Did you actually mean to say that low wages directly stagnate an entity's growth... Or to imply that actual unemployment is not much higher than propagated when quantification is not arbitrarily constrained to those that have not yet "left" the labor force? :?


I meant exactly what I wrote and neither of your guesses have anything to do with it.

"stagnated their growth" refers to the wages in industries where those wages have not outright decreased.

Generally employers are keeping or even hiring employees but slashing wages or forestalling raises to compensate.

Which makes
"NOMINAL wages are sticky so instead recessions cost jobs"look like pretty weak 'basic' economic theory.


FTFY. Also:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2011/pdf/ERP-2011.pdf

See page 246. There has not been a single year that nominal earnings have declined.

Also see the first column of page 244, where it is clear that employment declined drastically from 2008-2010.

Please return to your MSNBC and stop pretending that you understand what the fuck you're talking about.


Hi.

I was responding directly to someone who claimed "wages are sticky, basic econ lol".

But hey having a heart attack about nominal wages, that was pretty cute.


Then if you knew what you were talking about, why didn't you just correct the poster to whom you were responding? The fact that you didn't, and instead agreed, makes it appear that you don't understand, and that you're eager to pretend that economic theories are generally constructed in absolute and all-encompassing terms. Anecdotal exceptions to empirical data don't disprove the general rule (duh). I don't see how your assertion that the "nominal wages are sticky" (again, ftfy) hypothesis is fallacious is supported by your corresponding comments. But hey, attempting to manipulate others into believing you know what the fuck you're talking about by pretending I blew your egregious misrepresentation of reality out of proportion, that was pretty cute.

moose
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:16 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby moose » Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:05 pm

lajohn wrote:Go to a top 6, or if you get a scholarship. Otherwise, it's a pretty big risk.


Hmm.....so if you get into NYU, go.....if you get into UVA,..screw it too much risk. I hope you realize how absurd that is. THe opportunities you get at UChic, NYU, Columbia,....are not a whole lot better than what you'd get at Mich, UVA, or Penn.

Harvard and Yale are a different matter.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby ResolutePear » Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:16 pm

UVA WAS IN THE EPICENTER OF THE EARTHQUAKE WHICH CAUSED IT'S LEGAL MARKET TO COLLAPSE!

User avatar
HarlandBassett
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:50 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby HarlandBassett » Sun Aug 28, 2011 6:58 pm

ResolutePear wrote:UVA WAS IN THE EPICENTER OF THE EARTHQUAKE WHICH CAUSED IT'S LEGAL MARKET TO COLLAPSE!

Image

Jurist11
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:12 am

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby Jurist11 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:37 am

Unless you plan on making law review, getting CALI awards in half your classes, getting A- in the other half, not sleeping for 3 years, and asking your doctor for anxiety pills halfway through your second year just to make it through:

1. Seriously rethink even going to law school in the first place
And
2. ABSOLUTELY rethink going to ANY lower tiered school
.

Voltaire_X
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby Voltaire_X » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:17 am

I thought I was sure law school is where I belonged but this recession thread is scaring me. I am quite confident I can get into a top 6 school but I may end up with some student debt afterwards. I am pretty sure being a lawyer is what I want to do with my life, but at the same time I don't want to be taking any huge risks. Any advice? I'm a freshman in college right now.

User avatar
snailio
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:40 am

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby snailio » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:28 am

Voltaire_X wrote:I thought I was sure law school is where I belonged but this recession thread is scaring me. I am quite confident I can get into a top 6 school but I may end up with some student debt afterwards. I am pretty sure being a lawyer is what I want to do with my life, but at the same time I don't want to be taking any huge risks. Any advice? I'm a freshman in college right now.




You are only a freshman, you knock out that 4.0 or as close to it as possible and then make sure you hit the high 170's on your LSAT, you have plenty of time to watch what the economy does in the meantime.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby 071816 » Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:29 pm

Image

CynicusRex
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:08 pm

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby CynicusRex » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:35 am

snailio wrote:
Voltaire_X wrote:I thought I was sure law school is where I belonged but this recession thread is scaring me. I am quite confident I can get into a top 6 school but I may end up with some student debt afterwards. I am pretty sure being a lawyer is what I want to do with my life, but at the same time I don't want to be taking any huge risks. Any advice? I'm a freshman in college right now.


You are only a freshman, you knock out that 4.0 or as close to it as possible and then make sure you hit the high 170's on your LSAT, you have plenty of time to watch what the economy does in the meantime.


The "economy" is not the main problem, and it's unfortunate that TLS moves posts concerning the job market to a "bad economy" thread because it gives the wrong idea. The problem with the legal market is it's in a state of correction after a long-term bubble. Even if the economy starts booming again and it's not a jobless recovery (which it probably will be) the legal market specifically will still be a losing bet for the majority of prospective law students.

RefleX
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:22 am

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby RefleX » Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:19 pm

This thread is really disheartening to say the least. Now I'm stuck with my History degree with an English minor and afraid to even get involved with law school. I flip-flop between believing in myself, looking for other jobs like analyst positions, and anxiety attacks where I don't even want to try anymore. Being 24 and not knowing what to do is not a fun situation. I'll come out of school basically debt free but even so I'm losing sleep over it.

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

Re: RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here!

Postby NiccoloA » Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:11 pm

CynicusRex wrote:
The "economy" is not the main problem, and it's unfortunate that TLS moves posts concerning the job market to a "bad economy" thread because it gives the wrong idea. The problem with the legal market is it's in a state of correction after a long-term bubble. Even if the economy starts booming again and it's not a jobless recovery (which it probably will be) the legal market specifically will still be a losing bet for the majority of prospective law students.


I simply disagree.

Here's the problem. A lot of people here don't know anything about economics. What makes you say that the legal market was a bubble?

You're talking about a difference between structural and cyclical unemployment, but to me, there is not much to suggest that the problem is structural. Really, given the track record of law to continue to divide into new fields and only complicate, I would say that the long-term future of the legal market is probably similar to what it always has been.

What is affecting the structural balance of the legal market, precisely? Doc review? Temp agencies? Technology changes? I don't see any of that as being a real problem.

So what is it? Over-supply? Well, that isn't structural, that is market. What happens is that wages will adjust and I think that we're seeing the response to over-supply now. The pendulum is going to swing backwards. That's the market.


No, I think that the problem really, actually, in all honesty, is the market.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BeeTeeZ and 1 guest