Cleveland Marshall School of Law VERSUS Mississippi College Forum

[Turtledove]

No for real, Kapital's done this bs in two threads now and yet we still keep feeding him/her. It's especially difficult to understand because it was mostly the same people in this thread an the last.

[Turtledove]

No for real, Kapital's done this bs in two threads now and yet we still keep feeding him/her. It's especially difficult to understand because it was mostly the same people in this thread an the last.

BTW, Does anyone remember Mystical Wheel? Now that was an entertaining and dedicated troll. I feel like Kapital is a real step down in comparison.

[Stanford4Me]

Kaptial has successfully raised my blood pressure.

[romothesavior]

You have no idea what I’m talking about or what you’re trying to respond to.

And since you're the one who seems to know so much, why not explain what you're talking about for us plebes?

I think this should clear things up for you:

Romo, the people going to a T1 and the people at Ave Maria are searching for different jobs. What law school you go to serves as a significant signal to the market. It's possible to be mobile depending on your grades but not likely to happen.

A T1 in the top 10% with law review is looking for biglaw, a high ranking state position, or a nice federal job. A person in the same position at Ave Maria will not be vying for the same jobs. Instead of going after the $160,000 job they will be trying to secure the $60,000 job (both examples are using the private sector.)

The law market is extremely heterogeneous when it comes to human capital and marginal productivity. Under neoclassical assumptions, which for the moment lets assume are true, wages represent marginal productivity. High ranking T1 students are far more productive than high ranking T4 students. Both students will find jobs, assuming labor clearing markets, but at different wage rates.

*A liquidity trap, with a jobless recovery, makes the assumption of labor clearing markets not hold. In the short run employment is artificially high due to cyclical problems. Under normal circumstances the neoclassical model is correct.

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 9&t=144357

[Hannibal]

[Stanford4Me]

Romo, stop being an elitist. Let people go to whatever school they want to go to, paying whatever they want to go. That way, they can suffer the (likely) consequences or reap the (unlikely) benefits of their choice.

[scammedhard]

For the record: I apologize if I'm being harsh. I prefer discussion based in theory and empirical evidence.

Fine with me. Can you please show me a paper that analyzes the labor market for lawyers? And by paper, I mean one in an academic journal. Where are you getting your theory from? How do you know if the labor market for lawyers is cyclical or structural, or both? Show me your evidence. Your sources.
And don't worry, you can get VERY technical with me if prefer...

[beachbum]

Romo, stop being an elitist. Let people go to whatever school they want to go to, paying whatever they want to go. That way, they can suffer the (likely) consequences or reap the (unlikely) benefits of their choice.

"Because fuck 'em, that's why."

[Grizz]

You have no idea what I’m talking about or what you’re trying to respond to.

And since you're the one who seems to know so much, why not explain what you're talking about for us plebes?

Prezidentv8, you majored in economics. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. But, here's the thread where I explained all of the relevant issues in this thread but with much greater detail: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 9&t=144357. Since you majored in economics you should have no trouble understanding what I said (which was marginally technical at times.)

For the record: I apologize if I'm being harsh. I prefer discussion based in theory and empirical evidence.

Oh yeah, I remember that thread where you got shat on.

[prezidentv8]

You have no idea what I’m talking about or what you’re trying to respond to.

And since you're the one who seems to know so much, why not explain what you're talking about for us plebes?

Prezidentv8, you majored in economics. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. But, here's the thread where I explained all of the relevant issues in this thread but with much greater detail: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 9&t=144357. Since you majored in economics you should have no trouble understanding what I said (which was marginally technical at times.)

For the record: I apologize if I'm being harsh. I prefer discussion based in theory and empirical evidence.

Oh, I caught that.

[gwuorbust]

Actually guys, I think it is better if kapital loads up on the non-dischargeable debt. that way he will be less of a threat to society in later years when he is let loose on the world with a JD.

but seriously, the legal market is fucked. You think of yourself as some Paul Krugman. Paul Krugman this: the legal market is not growing, the number of lawyers leaving the market has fallen as the boomer don't retire cause they want to replace their 401ks, technological advances and outsourcing are rendering low level legal jobs irrelevant, and finally, there are 40k legal graduates pumped into the system each year.

Now, Mr. Krugman, have you ever heard of this thing called supply and demand?


so yes, the market always corrects. but what happens when there is increasing supply and decreasing demand? prices drop and some producers are forced out of the market. Read: lawyers earn less and some people who paid 200k for a shiny diploma are forced into other professions (or, as seems is now the case, they jump into getting more education).

[prezidentv8]

Now, Mr. Krugman, have you ever heard of this thing called supply and demand?

[kapital98]

so yes, the market always corrects. but what happens when there is increasing supply and decreasing demand? prices drop and some producers are forced out of the market. Read: lawyers earn less and some people who paid 200k for a shiny diploma are forced into other professions (or, as seems is now the case, they jump into getting more education).

You just paraphrased what I said 2 months ago

Structural issues are different because they are more important regarding distributive issues. Increasing the supply will lead to a short-run decrease in employment. However, and much more importantly, in the long-run employment will go back to potential equilibrium. Unfortunately for lawyers their average wage will decrease. As the barrier to entry of a legal job decreases more people will enter the market. The more people in the market the lower wages will be (it's rather simple math.)

I really don't see why everyone is painting me as a troll. I respect many of you and enjoy most of your discussions (especially Stanford4Me.)

P.S. Paul Krugman specializes in international economics (that's why he won his Noble prize.) If you want to make fun of me put up a picture of Alan Krueger. He's my favorite labor economist.

[romothesavior]

so yes, the market always corrects. but what happens when there is increasing supply and decreasing demand? prices drop and some producers are forced out of the market. Read: lawyers earn less and some people who paid 200k for a shiny diploma are forced into other professions (or, as seems is now the case, they jump into getting more education).

You just paraphrased what I said 2 months ago

No.

[kapital98]

so yes, the market always corrects. but what happens when there is increasing supply and decreasing demand? prices drop and some producers are forced out of the market. Read: lawyers earn less and some people who paid 200k for a shiny diploma are forced into other professions (or, as seems is now the case, they jump into getting more education).

You just paraphrased what I said 2 months ago

No.

Please read the two quotes. If there is a difference please explain. Btw, a perfectly competitive model assumes people leave and enter the market until the economic profit of a market = 0. (Just in case you didn't know what "potential equilibrium" meant...)

[Stanford4Me]

U MAD?

My only issue is that you are taking an economic theory developed largely for "traditional" areas of employment and are trying to apply it to the very unique field of legal employment. I'm too lazy to find the source right now (outlining right now), but there was an in-depth analysis of the legal economy by a blogger who discussed why the structure of the legal economy was, and still is, likely unable to be maintained int he long run.

[gwuorbust]

so yes, the market always corrects. but what happens when there is increasing supply and decreasing demand? prices drop and some producers are forced out of the market. Read: lawyers earn less and some people who paid 200k for a shiny diploma are forced into other professions (or, as seems is now the case, they jump into getting more education).

You just paraphrased what I said 2 months ago

Structural issues are different because they are more important regarding distributive issues. Increasing the supply will lead to a short-run decrease in employment. However, and much more importantly, in the long-run employment will go back to potential equilibrium. Unfortunately for lawyers their average wage will decrease. As the barrier to entry of a legal job decreases more people will enter the market. The more people in the market the lower wages will be (it's rather simple math.)

I think the difference is that the "long-run employment will go back to potential equilibrium" is not a true statement. Believe it or not, there is an irrational belief that going to law school is golden ticket. now normally, that would not be a problem. if people flooded into figher fighting cause they though it was a golden ticket, eventually those who flooded in could leave. BUT

law doesn't work that way, for three reasons.

first, there is an irrational belief that getting in will leads to immediate profits.

second, once you get in the debt basically forces you do practice law because other professions do not pay enough.

third, and if you do try to branch out you are still fucked. many employers view ex-law graduates with limited experience as a flight risk. meaning you actually decrease you job opportunities.

I agree with some of your analysis, but I also think that blasting that WSJ article that cited NALP was a great way to get labeled a troll, even if you aren't.

[kapital98]

so yes, the market always corrects. but what happens when there is increasing supply and decreasing demand? prices drop and some producers are forced out of the market. Read: lawyers earn less and some people who paid 200k for a shiny diploma are forced into other professions (or, as seems is now the case, they jump into getting more education).

You just paraphrased what I said 2 months ago

Structural issues are different because they are more important regarding distributive issues. Increasing the supply will lead to a short-run decrease in employment. However, and much more importantly, in the long-run employment will go back to potential equilibrium. Unfortunately for lawyers their average wage will decrease. As the barrier to entry of a legal job decreases more people will enter the market. The more people in the market the lower wages will be (it's rather simple math.)

I think the difference is that the "long-run employment will go back to potential equilibrium" is not a true statement. Believe it or not, there is an irrational belief that going to law school is golden ticket. now normally, that would not be a problem. if people flooded into figher fighting cause they though it was a golden ticket, eventually those who flooded in could leave. BUT

law doesn't work that way, for three reasons.

first, there is an irrational belief that getting in will leads to immediate profits.

second, once you get in the debt basically forces you do practice law because other professions do not pay enough.

third, and if you do try to branch out you are still fucked. many employers view ex-law graduates with limited experience as a flight risk. meaning you actually decrease you job opportunities.

I agree with some of your analysis, but I also think that blasting that WSJ article that cited NALP was a great way to get labeled a troll, even if you aren't.

I agree with your three points. In the other thread I advised the person to only go to a T3/T4 if their keep debt very low.

I hope we can agree to disagree on the other points.

Unless there is something new on this thread I'll take my leave.

@Standford4Me: If you find it after finals PM me. Thanks.

[Ersatz Haderach]

Well, this thread is still going strong. Honestly, it's very simple. Going to a T3 CAN make sense for a certain audience in certain circumstances. Overall, it is not a great economic choice in the best of times. "ITE", it's especially risky and can contribute to a variety of growing societal debt problems, and going in with blind optimism is criminally irresponsible. I mean, I go to a T2 and I was very nervous about doing it. I may pay for taking the scholarship, I might cheat the system. But I know the risk.

I draw the "LOL BURN UR MONEYS" line between T3 and T4. Personally I'd never go to a T3, but I'm not going to say they shouldn't exist as institutions. Tier 4 schools are terrible investments and seem like prestige projects of wealthy donors at schools that probably don't need law schools.

It's dumb to say that nobody who goes to a T3 can be successful, but it's also dumb to say that a T3 offers a reasonable ROE, economically speaking, for MOST of its students. That's fact. But, you can approach it from another angle and say, "Well, I want to be a lawyer, and this is my only chance, and nothing is going to stop me." Fine. Study hard. Know the risks. It's not a fair system, and there's nothing 'bad' about pointing that out. Fluctuations in the labor market aren't going to change the fact that lower-ranked schools will face more closed doors than higher-ranked ones.

[gwuorbust]

kapital98, what is the maximum amount of debt you would take on to attend:

Tulane?
GW?
GULC?

[romothesavior]

kapital98, what is the maximum amount of debt you would take on to attend:

Tulane?
GW?
GULC?

See to me, this whole argument with kapital has less to do with debt/salaries than it has to do with jobs. There are not enough jobs to go around, and there haven't been for a long time. I think after looking at that NALP data, it wouldn't be an unreasonable conclusion to say that many T3/4 schools can't even place 1/4 of their class in a full-time, J.D.-required job, let alone a decent paying job.

Sorry for not being an economist. Sorry for talking in plain English terms that everyone can understand. Sorry I don't understand half the stuff that kapital says. But I do understand basic math, and I understand that there are tens of thousands more grads than there are jobs. This notion that the market is going to take care of this problem is just wrong. More and more students go to law school ever year, and more law schools open ever year. Even if legal hiring goes back up to what it was when it was booming, there are still way more grads than jobs.

Less demand + more graduates = more unemployed graduates. I really don't see how this is that hard or how it requires a deep understanding of economics.

[Grizz]

kapital98, what is the maximum amount of debt you would take on to attend:

Tulane?
GW?
GULC?

See to me, this whole argument with kapital has less to do with debt/salaries than it has to do with jobs. There are not enough jobs to go around, and there haven't been for a long time. I think after looking at that NALP data, it wouldn't be an unreasonable conclusion to say that many T3/4 schools can't even place 1/4 of their class in a full-time, J.D.-required job, let alone a decent paying job.

Sorry for not being an economist. Sorry for talking in plain English terms that everyone can understand. Sorry I don't understand half the stuff that kapital says. But I do understand basic math, and I understand that there are tens of thousands more grads than there are jobs. This notion that the market is going to take care of this problem is just wrong. More and more students go to law school ever year, and more law schools open ever year. Even if legal hiring goes back up to what it was when it was booming, there are still way more grads than jobs.

Less demand + more graduates = more unemployed graduates. I really don't see how this is that hard or how it requires a deep understanding of economics.

Wages are sticky and the market needs to reach functional equilibrium you IDIOT don't you get it?

[scammedhard]

kapital98, what is the maximum amount of debt you would take on to attend:

Tulane?
GW?
GULC?

See to me, this whole argument with kapital has less to do with debt/salaries than it has to do with jobs. There are not enough jobs to go around, and there haven't been for a long time. I think after looking at that NALP data, it wouldn't be an unreasonable conclusion to say that many T3/4 schools can't even place 1/4 of their class in a full-time, J.D.-required job, let alone a decent paying job.

Sorry for not being an economist. Sorry for talking in plain English terms that everyone can understand. Sorry I don't understand half the stuff that kapital says. But I do understand basic math, and I understand that there are tens of thousands more grads than there are jobs. This notion that the market is going to take care of this problem is just wrong. More and more students go to law school ever year, and more law schools open ever year. Even if legal hiring goes back up to what it was when it was booming, there are still way more grads than jobs.

Less demand + more graduates = more unemployed graduates. I really don't see how this is that hard or how it requires a deep understanding of economics.

The scary thing is that some dumbass like kapital98 can, and probably will, get a JD. That, to me, is the most telling example that any donkey can be a lawyer these days, and if any donkey can get a JD, there is more than likely an oversupply of JDs.
I am even shocked that kapital98 is getting a BS/BA in Econ. What happened to higher education in the US? These days they seem more interested in getting paid upfront through the federal teat and students loans than in educating students and/or teaching them basic analytical skills.

[red_alertz]

a JD is a JD is a JD, for most of them, only difference is that the JDs are regional, but mostly equal

[scammedhard]

a JD is a JD is a JD, for most of them, only difference is that the JDs are regional, but mostly equal

And when I wrote all this...

I am even shocked that kapital98 is getting a BS/BA in Econ. What happened to higher education in the US? These days they seem more interested in getting paid upfront through the federal teat and students loans than in educating students and/or teaching them basic analytical skills.

...you, red_alertz, were also on my mind...