RECESSION PANIC MEGAPOST: Bad economy threads go here! Forum

[Bronte]

Sorry if this is over your head, Bronte, but the economy is worse than a goldfish in a mineshaft sucking on a lollipop. Talk to me in a year. You'll be singing a different tune. To use an analogy you might be able to wrap your feeble mind around, the economy is like a crackwhore hoolahooping sideways down a freeway. And you can quote me on that, buddy.

Get back to me with some content. (I like numbers, etc., not bullshit.)

I'm sorry somebody killed your sense of humor.

If you were joking, then ::facepalm:: me so hard I get a concussion. Otherwise, whatever, talk to me in a year, sorry if this is over your head, the meteor is coming, and so forth.

[06072010]

Sorry if this is over your head, Bronte, but the economy is worse than a goldfish in a mineshaft sucking on a lollipop. Talk to me in a year. You'll be singing a different tune. To use an analogy you might be able to wrap your feeble mind around, the economy is like a crackwhore hoolahooping sideways down a freeway. And you can quote me on that, buddy.

Get back to me with some content. (I like numbers, etc., not bullshit.)

I'm sorry somebody killed your sense of humor.

If you were joking, then ::facepalm:: me so hard I get a concussion. Otherwise, whatever, talk to me in a year, sorry if this is over your head, the meteor is coming, and so forth.

It's obviously a joke. What could you possibly glean from the madlibs I posted above?

[Bronte]

I'm sorry somebody killed your sense of humor.

If you were joking, then ::facepalm:: me so hard I get a concussion. Otherwise, whatever, talk to me in a year, sorry if this is over your head, the meteor is coming, and so forth.

It's obviously a joke. What could you possibly glean from the madlibs I posted above?

I just laughed out loud like a retard in my hotel room rereading: "like a crackwhore hoolahooping sidways down a freeway."

[Comrade84]

Sorry if this is over your head - there is nothing irrelevant about the analogy - people have overconsumed, so are obese with debt. And this is not exaggeration - a money manager with a big firm (since bankrupt) laid it out plainly about a year ago - they know what is going on - he said the debt level dwarfs what it was before the Depression. People said what you are when I said in 2005 get out of the market now, the crash is about to begin... talk to me in a year.

I'm a noobie, but one thing I've learned: Don't address prolific posters with the phrase "Sorry if this is over your head."

The whole "talk to me in a year" banter is going to blow up in the face of every conspiracy theorist (yourself included) who has predicted the Apocalypse. The economy has taken a hit (unfortunately for your theory, the Dow is back over 9000 and employment numbers have turned around), but most of us have enough calm and common sense not to cry wolf. Shit is bad, but the end is not neigh. Get a grip.

Sorry if this is over your head, Bronte, but the economy is worse than a goldfish in a mineshaft sucking on a lolipop. Talk to me in a year. You'll be singing a different tune. To use an analogy you might be able to wrap your feeble mind around, the economy is like a crackwhore hoolahooping sideways down a freeway. And you can quote me on that, buddy.

Nice one. crackwhore hoolahooping sideways down a freeway? I want what you are smoking man! lol

[lucydog]

I have no doubt that productivity gains will continue and economic growth will return in the near future, as has happened since the 1750's when productivity started to take off. This is neither the first nor the deepest financial collapse. Yes, we have a high debt/gdp ratio, and this is not some secret that only insider know. Everyone knows this. National Debt will not be our downfall, because unlike most countries with debt troubles, our debt is based in our own currency. Usually countries can't service their debt because internal inflation makes their real debt payments increase. Fortunately for us, inflation would make our real debt payments less and less.

The real problem for the US economy in the near to mid future is the growth in income inequality. Mechanization, off-shoring, and overall productivity gains have left us with an increasing pool of under-employed workers. Over the last 30 years US economic growth has been captured by a shrinking minority of the population, and sooner or later we will have to deal with these inequalities.

[M2008]

Sorry if this is over your head, Bronte, but the economy is worse than a goldfish in a mineshaft sucking on a lolipop. Talk to me in a year. You'll be singing a different tune. To use an analogy you might be able to wrap your feeble mind around, the economy is like a crackwhore hoolahooping sideways down a freeway. And you can quote me on that, buddy.

Anyone else imagining this being said by a hard-boiled noir detective?

[danquayle]

I have no doubt that productivity gains will continue and economic growth will return in the near future, as has happened since the 1750's when productivity started to take off. This is neither the first nor the deepest financial collapse. Yes, we have a high debt/gdp ratio, and this is not some secret that only insider know. Everyone knows this. National Debt will not be our downfall, because unlike most countries with debt troubles, our debt is based in our own currency. Usually countries can't service their debt because internal inflation makes their real debt payments increase. Fortunately for us, inflation would make our real debt payments less and less.

The real problem for the US economy in the near to mid future is the growth in income inequality. Mechanization, off-shoring, and overall productivity gains have left us with an increasing pool of under-employed workers. Over the last 30 years US economic growth has been captured by a shrinking minority of the population, and sooner or later we will have to deal with these inequalities.

Excellent post. I agree.

[Yimbeezy]

I have no doubt that productivity gains will continue and economic growth will return in the near future, as has happened since the 1750's when productivity started to take off. This is neither the first nor the deepest financial collapse. Yes, we have a high debt/gdp ratio, and this is not some secret that only insider know. Everyone knows this. National Debt will not be our downfall, because unlike most countries with debt troubles, our debt is based in our own currency. Usually countries can't service their debt because internal inflation makes their real debt payments increase. Fortunately for us, inflation would make our real debt payments less and less.

The real problem for the US economy in the near to mid future is the growth in income inequality. Mechanization, off-shoring, and overall productivity gains have left us with an increasing pool of under-employed workers. Over the last 30 years US economic growth has been captured by a shrinking minority of the population, and sooner or later we will have to deal with these inequalities.

+1

Another issue is that the inequality misallocates production, from a societal stability standpoint.

[Mr. T6]

It's 3:11 in the afternoon and I want a drink. What does this say about the economy?

[robin600]

I heard that because of the bad economy Cooley is raising their admissions standards because of proposed slight increase in applicants. It is now going up from admitting everything to only admitting those with a pulse.

[CE2JD]

I heard that because of the bad economy Cooley is raising their admissions standards because of proposed slight increase in applicants. It is now going up from admitting everything to only admitting those with a pulse.

Does Cooley require a high school diploma to enroll?

[robin600]

I heard that because of the bad economy Cooley is raising their admissions standards because of proposed slight increase in applicants. It is now going up from admitting everything to only admitting those with a pulse.

Does Cooley require a high school diploma to enroll?

Only if you don't have a pulse...

[osi]

Sorry if this is over your head, Bronte, but the economy is worse than a goldfish in a mineshaft sucking on a lolipop. Talk to me in a year. You'll be singing a different tune. To use an analogy you might be able to wrap your feeble mind around, the economy is like a crackwhore hoolahooping sideways down a freeway. And you can quote me on that, buddy.

Anyone else imagining this being said by a hard-boiled noir detective?

I definitely was.

[CE2JD]

I'd seriously like to do a documentary on Cooley law students ITE. If anyone knows an actual Cooley law student graduating this year or next year, can you please contact me via PM?

Thanks.

[ruleser]

I have no doubt that productivity gains will continue and economic growth will return in the near future, as has happened since the 1750's when productivity started to take off. This is neither the first nor the deepest financial collapse. Yes, we have a high debt/gdp ratio, and this is not some secret that only insider know. Everyone knows this. National Debt will not be our downfall, because unlike most countries with debt troubles, our debt is based in our own currency. Usually countries can't service their debt because internal inflation makes their real debt payments increase. Fortunately for us, inflation would make our real debt payments less and less.

The real problem for the US economy in the near to mid future is the growth in income inequality. Mechanization, off-shoring, and overall productivity gains have left us with an increasing pool of under-employed workers. Over the last 30 years US economic growth has been captured by a shrinking minority of the population, and sooner or later we will have to deal with these inequalities.

+1

Another issue is that the inequality misallocates production, from a societal stability standpoint.

The bolded part explains why the economy has zero chance of recovering and why we are where we are: 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending - how the F*$@% does increased production do anything to help that? Answer - it doesn't. Everyone is looking at the supply side/business side - if businesses start doing better, making more supply, or making it more efficiently, that's supposed to be good - Bull S%&$&. An increase in personal earnings, that is what affects an economy that is 2/3 consumer spending.

Yes, the growth has been captured by fewer and fewer. And everyone is still so busy looking at, "What is productivity doing," "What is GDP" that no one is even thinking to address this, the central issue of this downturn. So onward toward collapse we continue...

Since our last Yale president didn't get it, and our current Harvard one doesn't, maybe we need a Cooley president to pull us out of this...

[Bronte]

The bolded part explains why the economy has zero chance of recovering and why we are where we are: 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending - how the F*$@% does increased production do anything to help that? Answer - it doesn't. Everyone is looking at the supply side/business side - if businesses start doing better, making more supply, or making it more efficiently, that's supposed to be good - Bull S%&$&. An increase in personal earnings, that is what affects an economy that is 2/3 consumer spending.

Yes, the growth has been captured by fewer and fewer. And everyone is still so busy looking at, "What is productivity doing," "What is GDP" that no one is even thinking to address this, the central issue of this downturn. So onward toward collapse we continue...

Since our last Yale president didn't get it, and our current Harvard one doesn't, maybe we need a Cooley president to pull us out of this...

You can't think of any way that increased productivity and businesses doing better might help increase consumer spending? I can: jobs.

You're right, economists look at "What is productivity doing," "What is GDP doing," and another measure that you conveniently left out, and just happens to be the absolute favorite measure: "What is unemployment doing?"

[solo_lawyer]

the recession has only exposed the huge oversupply of non-elite JDs.

The law school bubble has popped. But the law school cartel is still exploiting naive 22 year olds by selling them non-elite law degrees and putting them into 6 figure debt.

[Mr. T6]

the recession has only exposed the huge oversupply of non-elite JDs.

The law school bubble has popped. But the law school cartel is still exploited naive 22 year olds by selling them non-elite law degrees and putting them into 6 figure debt.

Si.

[CE2JD]

[Yimbeezy]

I've always wanted to be the captain of a sinking ship!

[ruleser]

The bolded part explains why the economy has zero chance of recovering and why we are where we are: 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending - how the F*$@% does increased production do anything to help that? Answer - it doesn't. Everyone is looking at the supply side/business side - if businesses start doing better, making more supply, or making it more efficiently, that's supposed to be good - Bull S%&$&. An increase in personal earnings, that is what affects an economy that is 2/3 consumer spending.

Yes, the growth has been captured by fewer and fewer. And everyone is still so busy looking at, "What is productivity doing," "What is GDP" that no one is even thinking to address this, the central issue of this downturn. So onward toward collapse we continue...

Since our last Yale president didn't get it, and our current Harvard one doesn't, maybe we need a Cooley president to pull us out of this...

You can't think of any way that increased productivity and businesses doing better might help increase consumer spending? I can: jobs.

You're right, economists look at "What is productivity doing," "What is GDP doing," and another measure that you conveniently left out, and just happens to be the absolute favorite measure: "What is unemployment doing?"

Unemployment doesn't mean much as it's read - since Clinton stopped counting LT Unemp, and since someone working PT for Manpower as at temp isn't counted - Manpower has frequently been the #1 employer in the nation. What needs to be measured is household income/expenses, household debt/savings. Productivity does not = jobs. Often an increase in productivity means the opposite - more production from fewer man hours ie less jobs.

I know the lie that increased supply side numbers = jobs has been echoed unchecked for a generation, but it doesn't make it true. Increased production #'s thanks to labor in China/lower pay for Americans/more work from fewer employees is the disaster that we face. We need Americans to get paid. They are not. So we collapse.

[scott82]

ITA: Moar private student loan debt panic.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal ... pstoryview

I love the ledes that feature a struggling law school grad.

[pleasetryagain]

ITA: Moar private student loan debt panic.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal ... pstoryview

I love the ledes that feature a struggling law school grad.

"I know I have accomplished a lot, but I wonder if it was all worth it," said Schlaud, 28, who has a law degree from Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, and a master's degree in commercial real estate from John Marshall Law School in Chicago, Illinois.

so the girls in the real estate and has no income? shocker. I wish they would do a piece about all the grads who are working/paying their debts.

[the123kid]

Downturn Dims Prospects Even at Top Law Schools

By GERRY SHIH
This fall, law students are competing for half as many openings at big firms as they were last year in what is shaping up to be the most wrenching job search season in over 50 years.

For students now, the promise of the big law firm career — and its paychecks — is slipping through their fingers, forcing them to look at lesser firms in smaller markets as well as opportunities in government or with public interest groups, law school faculty and students say.

The frenzy has even pushed the nation’s top firms, a tradition-bound coterie, into discussing how to reform the recruitment process with an earnestness that would have been unthinkable just years ago.

Even if the economy is beginning to pick up, the legal profession has been pummeled over the last year, with some firms closing and survivors often asking associates to take leaves of absence.

How bad is it? Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, the juggernaut of New York, has slashed its hiring by more than half. For the first time in 136 years, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, a respected Philadelphia firm, has canceled its recruiting entirely. Global firms like dla piper and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe have postponed recruiting for several months to see if the market improves.

At Yale, students accustomed to being wooed by Big Law’s glittering names — like Baker & McKenzie; Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, & McCloy; and White & Case — were stunned when those firms canceled interviews in New Haven this month.

New York University, Georgetown, Northwestern and other top universities confirm that interviews are down by a third to a half compared with a year ago, while lower-ranked schools are suffering more. What is more, when interviews finish in a few weeks, even fewer offers will be extended, said Howard L. Ellin, the chairman of global hiring at Skadden, Arps, because many firms are interviewing students for slots they may not fill.

After he lost his job as a television reporter two years ago, Derek Fanciullo considered law school, thinking it was a historically sure bet. He took out “a ferocious amount of debt,” he said — $210,000, to be exact — and enrolled last September in the School of Law at New York University.

“It was thought to be this green pasture of stability, a more comfortable life,” said Mr. Fanciullo, who had heard that 90 percent of N.Y.U. law graduates land jobs at firms, and counted on that to repay his loans. “It was almost written in stone that you’ll end up in a law firm, almost like a birthright.”

With the cost of law school skyrocketing over the years, the implicit arrangement between students and the most expensive and prestigious schools has only strengthened: the student takes on hefty debt to pay tuition, and the school issues the golden ticket to a job at a high-paying firm — if that’s what the student wants.

“Students came in with a certain sense of what the compact was going to be,” said Irene Dorzback, the assistant dean for career services at the New York University School of Law. But with the system crumbling in recent months, Ms. Dorzback said, “people are now accepting this notion of a lost year.”

The timing is worst for the class of 2011, the second-years now looking to get into firms, because of a unique logjam created last year. After the September financial crisis, firms chose to defer their new hires at the price of steeply cutting recruiting this year.

But students who miss the brief window of opportunity to land an offer this fall may struggle to break into firms once next year’s class rises. When Julia Figurelli, a second-year student at the University of Pennsylvania, decided to enter law school a year ago, she expected to find a lucrative law firm job in three years — if not collecting the $160,000-a-year associate salaries at one of the uppermost partnerships. By the time she obtains her J.D., she says, she will have around $200,000 in debt.

“Had I seen where the market was going, I would’ve gone to a lower-ranked but less expensive public school,” she said. “I’m questioning whether law school was the right choice at all.”

Once aiming to work in Philadelphia, Ms. Figurelli is now hunting for jobs in lower-paying markets, like Pittsburgh and Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “I’m looking anywhere my competition isn’t looking,” she added.

School officials are pushing students to look beyond the white-shoe firms, to delve deep into alumni networks and to start mass letter-writing campaigns to potential employers. Like Ms. Figurelli, many students say that for the first time, they are considering and seeking work with government and public-interest groups.

The Social Security Administration, for example, said applications for lawyer positions and clerkships had more than doubled this year, to 2,000, from 800. The public-interest job fair at N.Y.U. this year was “packed to the gills,” Mr. Fanciullo recalled, but whereas in past years students had seven or eight interviews, some of his classmates this year had zero. “There’s a humongous trickle-down effect,” he said. “When the big firms don’t hire, everyone looks to government. And when those get filled up, then what happens?”

It has been a bizarre new reality, especially for elite schools. At Harvard, officials have had to hawk résumés or tell students, quite simply, to buck up. (“Now is not the time for avoidance, denial or panic,” Mark Weber, the assistant dean of career services, wrote in a March memo to Harvard Law’s graduating class.)

With the system’s frailties exposed by the recession, said Mr. Ellin from Skadden, Arps, the time could be ripe for “massive overhaul.”

Discussions at industry roundtables and casual talk among officials at leading schools and firms suggest a consensus that interview dates should be pushed back to the spring of the second year, if not the third year. The recent problems have arisen, reform-minded critics say, because the legal industry essentially hires two full years ahead of when employees begin to work. And because young lawyers have to be advanced by lockstep every year, it is difficult to make recruiting changes that are responsive to shocks in business.

“There’s a long list of issues that need re-examining,” said Ralph Baxter, the chairman of Orrick. “The current economic circumstances have helped people see the economic inefficiencies we’ve been living with.”

Even lockstep, as sacred a pillar of Big Law as the billable hour, has been undermined by the hiring headaches of the last year, some argue. Orrick and another major firm, Howrey, have introduced innovative programs for associates based on apprenticeships or tiered systems that depart from the traditional “up or out” partner-track models. Some industry observers say their moves represent first steps that may ultimately give firms greater flexibility in hiring.

“The situation is so dramatic it has freed them up to make changes that they wouldn’t otherwise,” said James G. Leipold, the executive director of the Association for Legal Career Professionals. “We’re going through a period of a surprising amount of experimentation.”

Not that any of those changes will come into effect soon enough to help the class of 2011.

On a recent Friday afternoon, Mr. Fanciullo sat at home waiting anxiously for his first callback after four days of interviews. Firms customarily called within 48 hours, he explained.

“You almost bank on the big firms hiring you because they’re really the only ones who can help you pay your debt,” he said, his mind already skipping forward to a situation he didn’t choose to articulate. “Quite frankly it would be an absolute disaster. I don’t know what I’d do.”

[CE2JD]

My God, they're going to kill us all.