Jobs are a coming!!!
LexCorde (Jul 30 - 9:19 am)
I live in NYC and have two job interviews today and a pro bono on Monday. There is a rumor that the economy is getting a little bit better. Jobs are a coming!
Reply
I live in NYC and have two job interviews today and a pro bono on Monday. There is a rumor that the economy is getting a little bit better. Jobs are a coming!
Reply
12345arff (Jul 30 - 10:15 am)
Jesus man you are prehaps the most annoying poster in this entire forum. Stop flaming.
Reply
Jesus man you are prehaps the most annoying poster in this entire forum. Stop flaming.
Reply
LexCorde (Jul 30 - 12:50 pm)
What is a flame and a troll? I am not either. I am very, very optimistic which is something this forum could use. Don't be a pussy wuss.
Reply
What is a flame and a troll? I am not either. I am very, very optimistic which is something this forum could use. Don't be a pussy wuss.
Reply
johndoeee (Jul 30 - 12:53 pm)
According to Faux News, the Brit anchor guy (don't know his name..) said that the economy is contracting again.
When are these "jobs" you speak of coming to a town near you?
Reply
According to Faux News, the Brit anchor guy (don't know his name..) said that the economy is contracting again.
When are these "jobs" you speak of coming to a town near you?
Reply
HomelessCrackheadEsq (Jul 30 - 12:55 pm)
You're the same doofus who was posting about wanting to reach out to the homeless. Piss off.
Reply
You're the same doofus who was posting about wanting to reach out to the homeless. Piss off.
Reply
LexCorde (Jul 30 - 1:00 pm)
I'm not a doofus sir. Why do you resort to ad hominem attacks. First of all, economic theory is just speculative based on measuring current market conditions that are subjectively interpreted. Second, jobs are everywhere. Look around and outside the window. It took me a while to figure it out too so don't feel bad but jobs are everywhere. How do you think people found jobs during the depression and when this country first started after the revolution? They didn't send a resume to some HR schmo. They rolled up their sleeves and did the right thing by being entrepreneul. We need to get back to those roots and away from the complacency that somehow got started that if you get a degree and send out a resume, you'll get hired. But really, the economy is starting to turn and jobs are a coming, wait and see. So you can create your own job or wait a while. Third, we need to help the homeless.
Reply
I'm not a doofus sir. Why do you resort to ad hominem attacks. First of all, economic theory is just speculative based on measuring current market conditions that are subjectively interpreted. Second, jobs are everywhere. Look around and outside the window. It took me a while to figure it out too so don't feel bad but jobs are everywhere. How do you think people found jobs during the depression and when this country first started after the revolution? They didn't send a resume to some HR schmo. They rolled up their sleeves and did the right thing by being entrepreneul. We need to get back to those roots and away from the complacency that somehow got started that if you get a degree and send out a resume, you'll get hired. But really, the economy is starting to turn and jobs are a coming, wait and see. So you can create your own job or wait a while. Third, we need to help the homeless.
Reply
butt_hair (Jul 30 - 1:19 pm)
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
* My favorite line of yours so far.
Reply
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
* My favorite line of yours so far.
Reply
causanortis (Jul 30 - 1:03 pm)
Wow some of you folks are pretty bitter and angry...
Lex dear,
the jobs aren't coming back.. and people simply didn't get jobs back in the depression, many just died, or stood in soup kitchen lines, others hate rats and god knows what else. They certainly were not very entrepreneurial compared to today's standard.
Reply
Wow some of you folks are pretty bitter and angry...
Lex dear,
the jobs aren't coming back.. and people simply didn't get jobs back in the depression, many just died, or stood in soup kitchen lines, others hate rats and god knows what else. They certainly were not very entrepreneurial compared to today's standard.
Reply
OhioDocReviewer (Jul 30 - 1:10 pm)
LexCorde is equal parts Horatio Alger and erstwhile JDU poster Callie.
"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps...tee hee, tee hee!"
Reply
LexCorde is equal parts Horatio Alger and erstwhile JDU poster Callie.
"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps...tee hee, tee hee!"
Reply
LexCorde (Jul 30 - 1:18 pm)
I'll take that as a compliment OhioDocReviewer. Causanortis, I think jobs are coming back. Jobs are a coming!!! People survived the depression. People will survive now. I agree people ought to be more entrepreneul and hard working. I am in a starbucks now and seeing people waiting on line for expensive coffees, reading expensive books, wearing expensive clothes, and listening to aweful music. We live in a consumeristic technocracy and we should get back to hard work and working hard rather than collecting a pay check for gossiping around the water cooler.
Reply
I'll take that as a compliment OhioDocReviewer. Causanortis, I think jobs are coming back. Jobs are a coming!!! People survived the depression. People will survive now. I agree people ought to be more entrepreneul and hard working. I am in a starbucks now and seeing people waiting on line for expensive coffees, reading expensive books, wearing expensive clothes, and listening to aweful music. We live in a consumeristic technocracy and we should get back to hard work and working hard rather than collecting a pay check for gossiping around the water cooler.
Reply
SoDespondent (Jul 30 - 3:33 pm)
This is why my back-up plan after becoming a hopeless, jobless law loser after graduation is to move back to the abandoned family farm and whip that shit into operational shape once more.
Reply
This is why my back-up plan after becoming a hopeless, jobless law loser after graduation is to move back to the abandoned family farm and whip that shit into operational shape once more.
Reply
causanortis (Jul 30 - 1:29 pm)
Lex,
you can think the jobs are coming back all you want, but it's simply not happening in any meaningful way. The unemployment level is still abysmally high... and I truly do not believe in my lifetime the legal profession will ever return to its previous 2002 condition, and even if the legal jobs did return, there are likely twice the amount of lawyers now in the market than there were ten years ago.
My best advice, put on a helmet and strap yourself in, we're in for one hell of a ride before things noticeably improve.. Things are bad and are getting worse, the best thing we can hope for is that during this period the US dollar isn't replaced as the world's currency because once that happens we're truly SOL.
Reply
Lex,
you can think the jobs are coming back all you want, but it's simply not happening in any meaningful way. The unemployment level is still abysmally high... and I truly do not believe in my lifetime the legal profession will ever return to its previous 2002 condition, and even if the legal jobs did return, there are likely twice the amount of lawyers now in the market than there were ten years ago.
My best advice, put on a helmet and strap yourself in, we're in for one hell of a ride before things noticeably improve.. Things are bad and are getting worse, the best thing we can hope for is that during this period the US dollar isn't replaced as the world's currency because once that happens we're truly SOL.
Reply
LexCorde (Jul 30 - 1:31 pm)
I repeat, jobs are a coming!!! Weve been through bumpy rides before my friend. But what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Jobs may not be what you consider pre-2002 conditions. I was still studying then so I do not know what the job market was like. I do know that 9/11 was a big factor that dealt a crushing blow to many job sectors. But now things will improve. Just keep looking and never give up hope.
Reply
I repeat, jobs are a coming!!! Weve been through bumpy rides before my friend. But what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Jobs may not be what you consider pre-2002 conditions. I was still studying then so I do not know what the job market was like. I do know that 9/11 was a big factor that dealt a crushing blow to many job sectors. But now things will improve. Just keep looking and never give up hope.
Reply
ephemeride (Jul 30 - 1:35 pm)
But what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
------------
Tell that to a paralyzed vet with PTSD.
Reply
But what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
------------
Tell that to a paralyzed vet with PTSD.
Reply
johnyquest (Aug 2 - 2:29 pm)
From this week's Modern Family episode (damn funny show, by the way):
Jay comes into the house holding a inspirational framed poster that says “What doesn’t kill us, makes us stronger.” But Manny disagrees.
Manny: “Lots of stuff that doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.”
Jay tries to hang the frame with the saying in Manny’s room but it ends up falling into the Shel Turtlesteins tank killing him. He tries to cover up what really happened saying that a raccoon broke into the house and killed the turtle. Manny leaves his room heartbroken after identifying the body. Gloria realizing something is up confronts Jay.
Gloria: “You lie. I’m Columbian, I know a fake crime scene when I see one.”
Gloria says that he has to come clean and tell Manny what happened but Jay disagrees.
Jay: “It was an accident, I’ve been through this before. When Mitchell was nine, I was supposed to take care of his bird. It got out and flew into a fan. It was like a bloody pillow fight.”
He continues, “To this day, Mitchell looks at me, I see him thinking ‘that’s the guy who killed Flyza Minnelli.”
Gloria says that he will find out and Jay contends he won’t because he covered his tracks. When realizing the name of the bird Jay wonders how he didn’t realize that his son was gay.
Later that night when going to bed Gloria is still upset that Jay hasn’t said anything to Manny.
Gloria: “Hard to sleep on a bed of lies, huh, Jay?”
Jay finally gives up and approaches Manny in his room. Manny is already waiting for him and knows that Jay wasn’t telling truth. Manny is confused why he lied but Jay says it’s because they have a good thing going between them and didn’t want to mess it up.
Reply
From this week's Modern Family episode (damn funny show, by the way):
Jay comes into the house holding a inspirational framed poster that says “What doesn’t kill us, makes us stronger.” But Manny disagrees.
Manny: “Lots of stuff that doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.”
Jay tries to hang the frame with the saying in Manny’s room but it ends up falling into the Shel Turtlesteins tank killing him. He tries to cover up what really happened saying that a raccoon broke into the house and killed the turtle. Manny leaves his room heartbroken after identifying the body. Gloria realizing something is up confronts Jay.
Gloria: “You lie. I’m Columbian, I know a fake crime scene when I see one.”
Gloria says that he has to come clean and tell Manny what happened but Jay disagrees.
Jay: “It was an accident, I’ve been through this before. When Mitchell was nine, I was supposed to take care of his bird. It got out and flew into a fan. It was like a bloody pillow fight.”
He continues, “To this day, Mitchell looks at me, I see him thinking ‘that’s the guy who killed Flyza Minnelli.”
Gloria says that he will find out and Jay contends he won’t because he covered his tracks. When realizing the name of the bird Jay wonders how he didn’t realize that his son was gay.
Later that night when going to bed Gloria is still upset that Jay hasn’t said anything to Manny.
Gloria: “Hard to sleep on a bed of lies, huh, Jay?”
Jay finally gives up and approaches Manny in his room. Manny is already waiting for him and knows that Jay wasn’t telling truth. Manny is confused why he lied but Jay says it’s because they have a good thing going between them and didn’t want to mess it up.
Reply
brasky (Jul 30 - 1:34 pm)
My backup career was crackwhore but I guess the market has fallen off for the profession.
Reply
My backup career was crackwhore but I guess the market has fallen off for the profession.
Reply
this (Aug 2 - 4:52 pm)
Are you kidding? If that has happened then there is no hope for any of us.
Reply
Are you kidding? If that has happened then there is no hope for any of us.
Reply
causanortis (Jul 30 - 1:35 pm)
Oh I'll be fine, my wife and I clear well over 200k.. and are poised to make more in the near future when she assumes president of her regional office... I'm just woefully concerned about my country and don't know what to make of our future, I know it's not good.
Reply
Oh I'll be fine, my wife and I clear well over 200k.. and are poised to make more in the near future when she assumes president of her regional office... I'm just woefully concerned about my country and don't know what to make of our future, I know it's not good.
Reply
coderemeritus (Jul 30 - 5:23 pm)
The job market for attorneys has improved in the past six months.
However, we are still in a big hole and the market is not improving anywhere near enough to keep up with attorney supply.
To be honest, I can't tell if LexCorde is outposting dwismos. Both newcomers seem to be a bit too bored this summer. LexCorde's resemble flames. dwismos has thread titles that consistently break the "longest thread title possible" record.
Reply
The job market for attorneys has improved in the past six months.
However, we are still in a big hole and the market is not improving anywhere near enough to keep up with attorney supply.
To be honest, I can't tell if LexCorde is outposting dwismos. Both newcomers seem to be a bit too bored this summer. LexCorde's resemble flames. dwismos has thread titles that consistently break the "longest thread title possible" record.
Reply
aknas (Jul 30 - 5:27 pm)
I want a job that pays more than my weekly direct deposit unemployment check from PBHO.
Reply
I want a job that pays more than my weekly direct deposit unemployment check from PBHO.
Reply
pharmstudent (Aug 1 - 11:02 pm)
Lex, you have what is called a confirmation bias. Even it was true that you did indeed get 2 interviews, that does not mean the same will happen to other lawyers. You yourself admit that these are hard economic times, one person's success and people going to starbucks is not a valid indication that the economy is getting better.
There is a difference between being optimistic and delusional. You are sounding like the latter right now.
Reply
Lex, you have what is called a confirmation bias. Even it was true that you did indeed get 2 interviews, that does not mean the same will happen to other lawyers. You yourself admit that these are hard economic times, one person's success and people going to starbucks is not a valid indication that the economy is getting better.
There is a difference between being optimistic and delusional. You are sounding like the latter right now.
Reply
AssociateX (Aug 1 - 11:24 pm)
I have to agree w/ pharmstudent to some extent. 2 job interviews doesn't mean that there are more jobs. Thats a ludicrous assertion. My best friend just got laid off from a job about 2 weeks ago. So I should assume that all companies are laying off workers?
The job market is improving but it is still NOWHERE near the levels it was before the 2008 crash. Do you understand that some of these jobs are simply NOT coming back because our economy is changing? The doc review gigs are already outsourced, and if they aren't - firms are smart enough not to bother hiring temps to do these projects and instead resort to overworking their current associates because its cheaper. No corporation is willing to pay the exorbitant rates that firms are demanding. Once the clients tightened their wallets, the cash flow to firm work shrunk. You don't need to be a rocket science to figure this out.
Reply
I have to agree w/ pharmstudent to some extent. 2 job interviews doesn't mean that there are more jobs. Thats a ludicrous assertion. My best friend just got laid off from a job about 2 weeks ago. So I should assume that all companies are laying off workers?
The job market is improving but it is still NOWHERE near the levels it was before the 2008 crash. Do you understand that some of these jobs are simply NOT coming back because our economy is changing? The doc review gigs are already outsourced, and if they aren't - firms are smart enough not to bother hiring temps to do these projects and instead resort to overworking their current associates because its cheaper. No corporation is willing to pay the exorbitant rates that firms are demanding. Once the clients tightened their wallets, the cash flow to firm work shrunk. You don't need to be a rocket science to figure this out.
Reply
therewillbeblood (Aug 3 - 10:29 am)
"So I should assume that all companies are laying off workers?"
Actually, you probably should.
Reply
"So I should assume that all companies are laying off workers?"
Actually, you probably should.
Reply
Lexcorde (Aug 2 - 12:28 pm)
Thats not delusional thinking, its realism. I believe jobs are a coming not because of such simple observations but rational conclusions based on evidence that market rates are going to increasse because of economic conditions improving; however slightly. The job market is getting better and I question your pessimism. Firms are greedy for the most part, not smart otherwise they would know that pushing your associates to the limit and not hiring more will eventually lead to their downfall. Happy associates are hardworking ones who realize they are appreciated and not exploited.
Another issue is why don't people stand up for themselves. I know existing associates at law firms and insurance defense companies are trying to hold onto their jobs but if they spoke out more along with their unemployed brothers and sisters then we would all benefit. Power to the people and shame on those of you who fail to see the light. Jobs are a coming!!
Reply
Thats not delusional thinking, its realism. I believe jobs are a coming not because of such simple observations but rational conclusions based on evidence that market rates are going to increasse because of economic conditions improving; however slightly. The job market is getting better and I question your pessimism. Firms are greedy for the most part, not smart otherwise they would know that pushing your associates to the limit and not hiring more will eventually lead to their downfall. Happy associates are hardworking ones who realize they are appreciated and not exploited.
Another issue is why don't people stand up for themselves. I know existing associates at law firms and insurance defense companies are trying to hold onto their jobs but if they spoke out more along with their unemployed brothers and sisters then we would all benefit. Power to the people and shame on those of you who fail to see the light. Jobs are a coming!!
Reply
pharmstudent (Aug 2 - 12:57 pm)
Speaking of evidence, I'd like to see a bit more before I am convinced. I understand you've have 3 interviews lined up. Can you provide us evidence that jobs are coming back? Because right now the evidence is pointing in the other direction. Jobs are being outsourced, saturated and wages seem to be spiraling down.
Reply
Speaking of evidence, I'd like to see a bit more before I am convinced. I understand you've have 3 interviews lined up. Can you provide us evidence that jobs are coming back? Because right now the evidence is pointing in the other direction. Jobs are being outsourced, saturated and wages seem to be spiraling down.
Reply
this (Aug 2 - 1:17 pm)
There is evidence that jobs are returning. Cravath is planning to triple its SA class next summer- still not boom time size, but better than this year. Skadden is also increasing its summer class, as is Ropes.
There have also been reports of 100% offer rates for this summer at a few firms.
These data (although these are reports from only a handful of firms) along with macro trends seem to indicate that the environment is improving a lot. By improving I mean from huge to declines to modest increases- the difference seems huge.
It is TBD whether these are trends that will stay for awhile or simply an upswing from a massive over correction to the downside on the part of firms.
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/07/summer2011.html
Reply
There is evidence that jobs are returning. Cravath is planning to triple its SA class next summer- still not boom time size, but better than this year. Skadden is also increasing its summer class, as is Ropes.
There have also been reports of 100% offer rates for this summer at a few firms.
These data (although these are reports from only a handful of firms) along with macro trends seem to indicate that the environment is improving a lot. By improving I mean from huge to declines to modest increases- the difference seems huge.
It is TBD whether these are trends that will stay for awhile or simply an upswing from a massive over correction to the downside on the part of firms.
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/07/summer2011.html
Reply
this (Aug 2 - 1:27 pm)
There other signs that might indicate the return of jobs to the legal sector as well.
IPO's have been delayed for months and sometimes years. These will eventually need to happen and will provide some work for firms.
M&A activity has also decreased by a lot. However, stocks are cheap by historical standards and companies are sitting on piles and piles of cash right now. They will eventually go looking for deals or try to expand.
Banks are also sitting on mountains - though somewhat smaller mountains than other corps - of cash as well.
In all there is some 3-4 trillion dollars of excess reserves, corporate cash, and consumer savings that is sitting around waiting to be spent. Since returns on cash are so incredibly low right now and are expected to stay incredibly low for a long time, there is a high likelihood that the cash will be spent. If that happens economic activity should increase and produce more robust growth than we have right now.
Reply
There other signs that might indicate the return of jobs to the legal sector as well.
IPO's have been delayed for months and sometimes years. These will eventually need to happen and will provide some work for firms.
M&A activity has also decreased by a lot. However, stocks are cheap by historical standards and companies are sitting on piles and piles of cash right now. They will eventually go looking for deals or try to expand.
Banks are also sitting on mountains - though somewhat smaller mountains than other corps - of cash as well.
In all there is some 3-4 trillion dollars of excess reserves, corporate cash, and consumer savings that is sitting around waiting to be spent. Since returns on cash are so incredibly low right now and are expected to stay incredibly low for a long time, there is a high likelihood that the cash will be spent. If that happens economic activity should increase and produce more robust growth than we have right now.
Reply
CleverLoginName (Aug 2 - 2:06 pm)
Well, it's great that a few more kids might hit the biglaw lottery next year.
That doesn't mean squat for those of us who graduated without jobs.
Reply
Well, it's great that a few more kids might hit the biglaw lottery next year.
That doesn't mean squat for those of us who graduated without jobs.
Reply
this (Aug 2 - 2:39 pm)
Yeah, it does not mean as much to someone who has already graduated. However, if hiring increases and the economy expands one would expect the likelihood of finding employment would increase for previous graduates as well - a trickle down/up type thing.
On a related note. I think it's interesting when people here make blanket statements such as "these jobs are never coming back" or "things are never going to get better." The evidence and history obviously contradict these positions, yet people assert them anyway. I think what people actually mean is "I might not get the job I want" or "I fear my situation will not improve." This may be some of the tension between posters like Lex (if he is not a total flame) and others. Maybe people find it easier to deal with their troubles if they think those troubles are simply a product of things completely beyond their control and everyone else is also suffering. However, I think this leads to a lot of hopelessness and unnecessary negativity. People on this board seem completely resigned to the fact that things will simply never improve or that they are going to be bad for such a long time improvements will be meaningless for them. I think people should be aware of this type of bias on this board.
it really troubles me when I read posts which indicate that someone has been convinced that they will never get a job because of what they read here. It is just as bad as someone being convinced that they will graduate #1 in their class and make partner at WLRK because of what the read on other forums.
/rant.
Reply
Yeah, it does not mean as much to someone who has already graduated. However, if hiring increases and the economy expands one would expect the likelihood of finding employment would increase for previous graduates as well - a trickle down/up type thing.
On a related note. I think it's interesting when people here make blanket statements such as "these jobs are never coming back" or "things are never going to get better." The evidence and history obviously contradict these positions, yet people assert them anyway. I think what people actually mean is "I might not get the job I want" or "I fear my situation will not improve." This may be some of the tension between posters like Lex (if he is not a total flame) and others. Maybe people find it easier to deal with their troubles if they think those troubles are simply a product of things completely beyond their control and everyone else is also suffering. However, I think this leads to a lot of hopelessness and unnecessary negativity. People on this board seem completely resigned to the fact that things will simply never improve or that they are going to be bad for such a long time improvements will be meaningless for them. I think people should be aware of this type of bias on this board.
it really troubles me when I read posts which indicate that someone has been convinced that they will never get a job because of what they read here. It is just as bad as someone being convinced that they will graduate #1 in their class and make partner at WLRK because of what the read on other forums.
/rant.
Reply
johnyquest (Aug 2 - 2:45 pm)
Perhaps when Lexcorde gets an offer from one of those interviews, he/she could post the firms with the other two open positions, so that others here could apply.
Reply
Perhaps when Lexcorde gets an offer from one of those interviews, he/she could post the firms with the other two open positions, so that others here could apply.
Reply
LexCorde (Aug 2 - 4:33 pm)
Wheres your evidence that jobs are dwindling in the law? Did you check out today's new york law journal?
Reply
Wheres your evidence that jobs are dwindling in the law? Did you check out today's new york law journal?
Reply
causanortis (Aug 2 - 3:00 pm)
We are not so much saying "No jobs are ever coming back," as much as we're saying the legal profession will "never return to it's pre-2002 status," and even if it did, there are twice as many lawyers in the market than there were ten years ago, this will continue to drag down wages for everyone, and devalue the worth of a jd...
Furthermore, the legal market will continue to get more saturated as more law schools open every year, and the schools already in existence continue to increase their incoming class size.. These are irrefuteable facts, and you simply can not defy the rules of supply and demand. I forget the exact numbers, but it's something along the lines that in 5 years there will be 1 lawyer for every 250 people, this is totally unsustainable. This is the irreversible trend we're referring to.
Reply
We are not so much saying "No jobs are ever coming back," as much as we're saying the legal profession will "never return to it's pre-2002 status," and even if it did, there are twice as many lawyers in the market than there were ten years ago, this will continue to drag down wages for everyone, and devalue the worth of a jd...
Furthermore, the legal market will continue to get more saturated as more law schools open every year, and the schools already in existence continue to increase their incoming class size.. These are irrefuteable facts, and you simply can not defy the rules of supply and demand. I forget the exact numbers, but it's something along the lines that in 5 years there will be 1 lawyer for every 250 people, this is totally unsustainable. This is the irreversible trend we're referring to.
Reply
CleverLoginName (Aug 2 - 3:36 pm)
Yeah, the legal profession will never be the same. That's for sure. And maybe that's a good thing for society as a whole, in the long run (though not for people who recently graduated after betting their futures a law degree).
The kids who are considering law school have to catch on to reality someday, right? For decades, the common wisdom is that lawyers most lawyers make very good livings. I understand that it might take years, if not a full generation, to shake this from our collective consciousness. I fear that, until the perception that outsiders hold of the legal industry changes, countless intelligent young people will continue to buy six-figure lottery tickets by going to law school.
Of course, comparing law school to the lottery might be giving law school more credit than it deserves. If you don't win the lottery, you're out a couple bucks. If you don't win the law school lotto, you've destroyed your career.
Reply
Yeah, the legal profession will never be the same. That's for sure. And maybe that's a good thing for society as a whole, in the long run (though not for people who recently graduated after betting their futures a law degree).
The kids who are considering law school have to catch on to reality someday, right? For decades, the common wisdom is that lawyers most lawyers make very good livings. I understand that it might take years, if not a full generation, to shake this from our collective consciousness. I fear that, until the perception that outsiders hold of the legal industry changes, countless intelligent young people will continue to buy six-figure lottery tickets by going to law school.
Of course, comparing law school to the lottery might be giving law school more credit than it deserves. If you don't win the lottery, you're out a couple bucks. If you don't win the law school lotto, you've destroyed your career.
Reply
this (Aug 2 - 4:51 pm)
This is true if your outlook is BIGLAW or bust. If they are entering the profession simply hoping for that payout at the end then things will likely not turn out well for them. For many reasons this is simply the wrong reason to enter any field (except maybe business where a profit only motive may be beneficial).
Reply
This is true if your outlook is BIGLAW or bust. If they are entering the profession simply hoping for that payout at the end then things will likely not turn out well for them. For many reasons this is simply the wrong reason to enter any field (except maybe business where a profit only motive may be beneficial).
Reply
this (Aug 2 - 4:48 pm)
causanortis (Jul 30 - 1:03 pm)
Wow some of you folks are pretty bitter and angry...
Lex dear,
the jobs aren't coming back.. and people simply didn't get jobs back in the depression, many just died, or stood in soup kitchen lines, others hate rats and god knows what else. They certainly were not very entrepreneurial compared to today's standard.
The above is what I took to mean "these jobs are never coming back." nowhere did I write that NO jobs are ever coming back.
What are these irreversible trends? First year law school enrollment in the last thirty years has fluctuated up and down. It hit 42k in 1982 then dipped and hit 42k again in 89. It then increased to 44k then dipped and did not hit 44k again until 02.
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%201.pdf
JD's award followed a similar pattern. 4ok in 93, dipped then 40k in 97, then dipped then hit 40k in 2004.
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%209.pdf
So much for an "irreversible trend."
As for 1 in 250 lawyers per person. I am not totally sure where that number comes from. The BLS states that there are 759k lawyers- that's one in more than 415. There are some estimates that put this number higher but they include people who do not work in the legal field and are classified as working in a separate field such as teachers. For example, I had two undergraduate professors both of whom had JDs. Does it make sense to count them in the lawyer to population ration when trying to determine if we have too many lawyers for the amount of legal work needed if those two professors do not engage in substantive legal work?
Lastly there has been a 36% increase in population since 1980 and a 22% increase in J.D.s awarded per year. http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+population+statistics compare to http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%209.pdf
Now I cannot find out how many practicing attorneys there were in 1980 so those statistics do not tell the whole story. However, it does take some of the wind out of the sails of the over saturation argument. I suspect this argument is really about the difference between the haves and the have-nots in the legal field anyway. It is true that in law, like almost any other field, there is a huge and growing disparity between those at the top and those at the bottom. This may be what some people refer to as over saturation, but it is actually an increasing bimodal salary trend, which is indicative of the US and other advanced world economies over the last three or four decades.
Reply
causanortis (Jul 30 - 1:03 pm)
Wow some of you folks are pretty bitter and angry...
Lex dear,
the jobs aren't coming back.. and people simply didn't get jobs back in the depression, many just died, or stood in soup kitchen lines, others hate rats and god knows what else. They certainly were not very entrepreneurial compared to today's standard.
The above is what I took to mean "these jobs are never coming back." nowhere did I write that NO jobs are ever coming back.
What are these irreversible trends? First year law school enrollment in the last thirty years has fluctuated up and down. It hit 42k in 1982 then dipped and hit 42k again in 89. It then increased to 44k then dipped and did not hit 44k again until 02.
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%201.pdf
JD's award followed a similar pattern. 4ok in 93, dipped then 40k in 97, then dipped then hit 40k in 2004.
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%209.pdf
So much for an "irreversible trend."
As for 1 in 250 lawyers per person. I am not totally sure where that number comes from. The BLS states that there are 759k lawyers- that's one in more than 415. There are some estimates that put this number higher but they include people who do not work in the legal field and are classified as working in a separate field such as teachers. For example, I had two undergraduate professors both of whom had JDs. Does it make sense to count them in the lawyer to population ration when trying to determine if we have too many lawyers for the amount of legal work needed if those two professors do not engage in substantive legal work?
Lastly there has been a 36% increase in population since 1980 and a 22% increase in J.D.s awarded per year. http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+population+statistics compare to http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%209.pdf
Now I cannot find out how many practicing attorneys there were in 1980 so those statistics do not tell the whole story. However, it does take some of the wind out of the sails of the over saturation argument. I suspect this argument is really about the difference between the haves and the have-nots in the legal field anyway. It is true that in law, like almost any other field, there is a huge and growing disparity between those at the top and those at the bottom. This may be what some people refer to as over saturation, but it is actually an increasing bimodal salary trend, which is indicative of the US and other advanced world economies over the last three or four decades.
Reply
causanortis (Aug 2 - 9:06 pm)
I was thinking about putting in a well reasoned and rational response to your message, then it occurred to me that I really don't care all that much.
Believe whatever you wish, believe that somehow more lawyers in our society per capita will not mysteriously drag down wages for everyone else; believe that just because some people are currently working as teachers or in other professions, this will create a de facto re-entry barrier that will restrict them from competiting against the same legal positions in the future to which you will apply; and believe that lawyers that fall within both bimodal pay scales will not be in direct competition with each other for the exact same jobs when the economy turns sour....
Believe what you wish. I simply do not care, or at least care enough to put down my beer and type with both hands.
Reply
I was thinking about putting in a well reasoned and rational response to your message, then it occurred to me that I really don't care all that much.
Believe whatever you wish, believe that somehow more lawyers in our society per capita will not mysteriously drag down wages for everyone else; believe that just because some people are currently working as teachers or in other professions, this will create a de facto re-entry barrier that will restrict them from competiting against the same legal positions in the future to which you will apply; and believe that lawyers that fall within both bimodal pay scales will not be in direct competition with each other for the exact same jobs when the economy turns sour....
Believe what you wish. I simply do not care, or at least care enough to put down my beer and type with both hands.
Reply
this (Aug 2 - 10:29 pm)
LoL I never made any of those assertions, but I suppose that's just the beer talking.
I never made any judgments about more or fewer lawyers per capita being good or bad. I simply stated that the ratio of practicing attorneys to population is not 1:250. As with any data there are a number of ways to measure this. Those data that put the number at close to 1 in 300 or higher include all living attorneys whether they work in the field or not. I do not think that it is proper to include comatose patients in the ratio when determining legal employment saturation. just think about it. Why include all living attorneys. Especially in a profession has, in the past, had decent salaries and decent benefits. People retire and live for another 20 or 30 years, change industries, and a whole host of other factors that limit the number of people working in the field. it just doesn't make sense to include everyone who breathes and has a JD when discussing employment market saturation.
I never stated that my UG professors would not compete in the broader legal field (though why would they if they have tenure at a large university) or that others similarly positioned would not.
I also never stated that people on each end of the distribution would not compete. I am simply pointing out that, during non-economy just exploded times, to those on the leftmost mode, the market probably feels over saturated. Whereas those at the other end probably do not feel exactly the same way. To determine if there is real over saturation one would have to know if those on the rightmost mode truly do add value that warrants their extra pay. If they are simply more valuable and productive employees, then the disparity may simply be reflective of the employees' value creating potential. Otherwise, perhaps a more bell-shape distribution would indicate a healthier legal market.
In any case, I find it particularly interesting that when anyone has real substantive data these threads tend to simply shut down.
Reply
LoL I never made any of those assertions, but I suppose that's just the beer talking.
I never made any judgments about more or fewer lawyers per capita being good or bad. I simply stated that the ratio of practicing attorneys to population is not 1:250. As with any data there are a number of ways to measure this. Those data that put the number at close to 1 in 300 or higher include all living attorneys whether they work in the field or not. I do not think that it is proper to include comatose patients in the ratio when determining legal employment saturation. just think about it. Why include all living attorneys. Especially in a profession has, in the past, had decent salaries and decent benefits. People retire and live for another 20 or 30 years, change industries, and a whole host of other factors that limit the number of people working in the field. it just doesn't make sense to include everyone who breathes and has a JD when discussing employment market saturation.
I never stated that my UG professors would not compete in the broader legal field (though why would they if they have tenure at a large university) or that others similarly positioned would not.
I also never stated that people on each end of the distribution would not compete. I am simply pointing out that, during non-economy just exploded times, to those on the leftmost mode, the market probably feels over saturated. Whereas those at the other end probably do not feel exactly the same way. To determine if there is real over saturation one would have to know if those on the rightmost mode truly do add value that warrants their extra pay. If they are simply more valuable and productive employees, then the disparity may simply be reflective of the employees' value creating potential. Otherwise, perhaps a more bell-shape distribution would indicate a healthier legal market.
In any case, I find it particularly interesting that when anyone has real substantive data these threads tend to simply shut down.
Reply
dwismos (Aug 2 - 10:51 pm)
The BLS number you cited (750K-ish) could easily indicate that there is so little money to be made, in so many cases, that people leave the profession right and left. So, while 1/250 is a law grad, only 1/419 is a practicing attorney because it is so difficult to make a living as a practicing atty. Am I wrong?
That's how I read it. Only a tiny fraction work in academia, I'm sure.
Reply
The BLS number you cited (750K-ish) could easily indicate that there is so little money to be made, in so many cases, that people leave the profession right and left. So, while 1/250 is a law grad, only 1/419 is a practicing attorney because it is so difficult to make a living as a practicing atty. Am I wrong?
That's how I read it. Only a tiny fraction work in academia, I'm sure.
Reply
this (Aug 2 - 11:11 pm)
Yes this could absolutely be true. It is probably also true that some of the discrepancy comes from retired attorneys, ones who got a JD just to learn to think like a lawyer (back when law school was really cheap), JD/MBAs who work in business solely, Stanford Law graduates who decided to farm pot when that became legal instead of being an attorney, BIGLAW associates who tried to off themselves but simply ended up being committed or comatose and all that jazz.
I just think that to compare apples to apples we would need to know the per capita rate of practicing attorneys and how that has changed over time when discussing the extent of legal market saturation. I think that is a much more worthwhile comparison than just #of JDs. This would still only be half the equation anyway. We would also need to know whether the amount of legal work has increased or decreased to determine if the additional number of attorneys is necessary.
This would factor out changes in, for example, increased life expectancy of people after retirement and things like that.
Reply
Yes this could absolutely be true. It is probably also true that some of the discrepancy comes from retired attorneys, ones who got a JD just to learn to think like a lawyer (back when law school was really cheap), JD/MBAs who work in business solely, Stanford Law graduates who decided to farm pot when that became legal instead of being an attorney, BIGLAW associates who tried to off themselves but simply ended up being committed or comatose and all that jazz.
I just think that to compare apples to apples we would need to know the per capita rate of practicing attorneys and how that has changed over time when discussing the extent of legal market saturation. I think that is a much more worthwhile comparison than just #of JDs. This would still only be half the equation anyway. We would also need to know whether the amount of legal work has increased or decreased to determine if the additional number of attorneys is necessary.
This would factor out changes in, for example, increased life expectancy of people after retirement and things like that.
Reply
dwismos (Aug 2 - 11:35 pm)
True. One thing we do know is that tuition increases have run so far above inflation that, even if nothing else has really changed, the cost of a JD makes being a lawyer a far less attractive proposition.
Also, one thing we do know is that people aren't retiring as early as they used to, so I'm going to guess that more lawyers are hanging around.
Reply
True. One thing we do know is that tuition increases have run so far above inflation that, even if nothing else has really changed, the cost of a JD makes being a lawyer a far less attractive proposition.
Also, one thing we do know is that people aren't retiring as early as they used to, so I'm going to guess that more lawyers are hanging around.
Reply
this (Aug 3 - 1:16 am)
Your post got me thinking about the average retirement age. It has actually decreased from 68 to 63. In other words, people are retiring earlier not later in the economy as a whole.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2007/6b.html
Average years in retirement have also increased from 10 to 18- one would expect this since people are living longer.
These are broad trends and not necessarily representative of the legal field where people might retire earlier or later and may live more or fewer years. However, I thought it was interesting.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba504
Reply
Your post got me thinking about the average retirement age. It has actually decreased from 68 to 63. In other words, people are retiring earlier not later in the economy as a whole.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2007/6b.html
Average years in retirement have also increased from 10 to 18- one would expect this since people are living longer.
These are broad trends and not necessarily representative of the legal field where people might retire earlier or later and may live more or fewer years. However, I thought it was interesting.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba504
Reply
this (Aug 3 - 1:20 am)
Me neither until five minutes ago! That is one of the reason I do like to have reasonable debates. It can be an impetus to learn new and exciting (well retirement age is not really exciting, but you get the idea) things.
Reply
Me neither until five minutes ago! That is one of the reason I do like to have reasonable debates. It can be an impetus to learn new and exciting (well retirement age is not really exciting, but you get the idea) things.
Reply
dwismos (Aug 3 - 2:20 pm)
Either way, with tuition running away from inflation at such a high rate, law school probably isn't worth it for most people who go. In state tuition at a UC is 40k+/yr.
Reply
Either way, with tuition running away from inflation at such a high rate, law school probably isn't worth it for most people who go. In state tuition at a UC is 40k+/yr.
Reply
causanortis (Aug 2 - 11:18 pm)
I never said you believed in such things, I simply said if believing all of this helps you to feel better about the general larger profession, then good on you mate.. Far be it for me to rain on ur parade, again I simply do not care..
You are banking on many things which are not clear or certain in your incessant need to believe the absolute best. Cheif of which is your belief that just because someone is currently not practicing law, they will not chose to do so if the market improves.. I find this notion particularly hilarious if you consider the fact that many people with j.d.'s are either unemployed or are doing hard, menial, or blue collar work.
Reply
I never said you believed in such things, I simply said if believing all of this helps you to feel better about the general larger profession, then good on you mate.. Far be it for me to rain on ur parade, again I simply do not care..
You are banking on many things which are not clear or certain in your incessant need to believe the absolute best. Cheif of which is your belief that just because someone is currently not practicing law, they will not chose to do so if the market improves.. I find this notion particularly hilarious if you consider the fact that many people with j.d.'s are either unemployed or are doing hard, menial, or blue collar work.
Reply
this (Aug 2 - 11:22 pm)
You are correct. You did not assert that I believed those things. However, I think anyone reading your post would have concluded that you thought I held such beliefs. Otherwise, why would you mention them?
I do not consider myself naive, disillusional, or even participating in any sort of parade. I am simply pointing out that there exists evidence that may indicate that some of the more egregious claims in this thread and others are not entirely true.
Reply
You are correct. You did not assert that I believed those things. However, I think anyone reading your post would have concluded that you thought I held such beliefs. Otherwise, why would you mention them?
I do not consider myself naive, disillusional, or even participating in any sort of parade. I am simply pointing out that there exists evidence that may indicate that some of the more egregious claims in this thread and others are not entirely true.
Reply
causanortis (Aug 2 - 11:25 pm)
I listed a bunch of possible things that you might possibly be inclined to believe in your best case scenario, I don't care which parallel universe you choose to live in.. Yeah, this is going nowhere... Wish you luck, lemming..
Reply
I listed a bunch of possible things that you might possibly be inclined to believe in your best case scenario, I don't care which parallel universe you choose to live in.. Yeah, this is going nowhere... Wish you luck, lemming..
Reply
causanortis (Aug 2 - 11:37 pm)
BTW Time magazine stated in 1991 we had 1 lawyer for every 300 people..
IN 1991 ---
clearly north of the 750k figure you proposed.....
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973684-2,00.html
...before the economy spiraled out of control and before at least 15 additional law schools opened their doors. I don't think it's too much of a reach to say that in five more years we'll be nearing 1 in every 250..
Reply
BTW Time magazine stated in 1991 we had 1 lawyer for every 300 people..
IN 1991 ---
clearly north of the 750k figure you proposed.....
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973684-2,00.html
...before the economy spiraled out of control and before at least 15 additional law schools opened their doors. I don't think it's too much of a reach to say that in five more years we'll be nearing 1 in every 250..
Reply
this (Aug 3 - 12:59 am)
LoL for someone who doesn't care . . . Also calling me a lemming and suggesting I may live in a parallel universe simply because I disagree with you on some of your assertions? I do not think that's necessary at all.
Anyway, my dispute is with the difference between people who are breathing and hold a JD (licensed attorneys as indicated in the Time magazine article) and those actually practicing law. I am sure the two are highly correlated but not the same number. The 750k was not a number I proposed. It is posted on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' website. I did not make it up or anything.
All I am saying is that to have an accurate comparison of the legal market over time we should be focusing on the number of practicing attorneys and how it has changed.
However, regardless of which number you use. The number of people practicing or holding JDs is meaningless without some measurement of how the quantity of legal work has changed. This is, of course, hard to measure, but the laws of supply and demand are difficult to escape (as you mentioned in a previous post). What would be making salaries increase so much over the past few decades if there really has been a long term oversupply? Further, what is driving the increase in the disparity between the two modes? I do not have the answers to these things I just think they are worth pondering as well.
Reply
LoL for someone who doesn't care . . . Also calling me a lemming and suggesting I may live in a parallel universe simply because I disagree with you on some of your assertions? I do not think that's necessary at all.
Anyway, my dispute is with the difference between people who are breathing and hold a JD (licensed attorneys as indicated in the Time magazine article) and those actually practicing law. I am sure the two are highly correlated but not the same number. The 750k was not a number I proposed. It is posted on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' website. I did not make it up or anything.
All I am saying is that to have an accurate comparison of the legal market over time we should be focusing on the number of practicing attorneys and how it has changed.
However, regardless of which number you use. The number of people practicing or holding JDs is meaningless without some measurement of how the quantity of legal work has changed. This is, of course, hard to measure, but the laws of supply and demand are difficult to escape (as you mentioned in a previous post). What would be making salaries increase so much over the past few decades if there really has been a long term oversupply? Further, what is driving the increase in the disparity between the two modes? I do not have the answers to these things I just think they are worth pondering as well.
Reply
LexCorde (Aug 2 - 4:41 pm)
Who is Joan King? I agree with This that there is a lot of pessimism on this board. Its ok to rant but lets be a little grateful for what we have. Also, I like Cleverloginname as well whose logic is sound but misguided. There are not too many lawyers but there are too many idealists who believe that law is a ticket to riches because one person out of God knows how many got a six figure salary right out of school. There are opportunities and there will be hope even if there is one lawyer for every 250 people. Let's work together for a better tomorrow.
Reply
Who is Joan King? I agree with This that there is a lot of pessimism on this board. Its ok to rant but lets be a little grateful for what we have. Also, I like Cleverloginname as well whose logic is sound but misguided. There are not too many lawyers but there are too many idealists who believe that law is a ticket to riches because one person out of God knows how many got a six figure salary right out of school. There are opportunities and there will be hope even if there is one lawyer for every 250 people. Let's work together for a better tomorrow.
Reply
AssociateX (Aug 2 - 11:37 pm)
how did those job interviews work out? did you get any offers yet?
Reply
how did those job interviews work out? did you get any offers yet?
Reply
LexCorde (Aug 3 - 9:44 am)
As a matter of fact I have a second interview coming up and another job interview today.
Reply
As a matter of fact I have a second interview coming up and another job interview today.
Reply
therewillbeblood (Aug 3 - 10:32 am)
You're still not employed after being out of law school all this time? That's depressing, no?
Reply
You're still not employed after being out of law school all this time? That's depressing, no?
Reply
AssociateX (Aug 3 - 10:37 am)
He was employed for about 4 months but got canned a few weeks ago.
Reply
He was employed for about 4 months but got canned a few weeks ago.
Reply
therewillbeblood (Aug 3 - 11:09 am)
Does he troll here? First inclination was to assume it's a troll, but he always came across differently than most trolls.
Reply
Does he troll here? First inclination was to assume it's a troll, but he always came across differently than most trolls.
Reply
AssociateX (Aug 4 - 11:54 am)
HA! trust me, if I were to create a sock puppet - my writing and grammar would be a heck of a lot better! I'm insulted now.
Reply
HA! trust me, if I were to create a sock puppet - my writing and grammar would be a heck of a lot better! I'm insulted now.
Reply
TiredofStrugglin (Aug 4 - 1:51 pm)
awww... 'Toine, don't be mad!
some of you are a riot, for sure. i'd definitely kick back drinks with y'all if we were in the same area.
Reply
awww... 'Toine, don't be mad!
some of you are a riot, for sure. i'd definitely kick back drinks with y'all if we were in the same area.
Reply
AssociateX (Aug 4 - 2:12 pm)
I had a rough day in court this morning. Got my ass handed to me in a silver platter at trial and the Judge was just..UGH..don't get me started...I needed to vent, what can I say.
No harm, no foul everyone. I just get SO fu*king riled up over the shit opposing counsel pulls on my firm sometimes.
/rant.
Reply
I had a rough day in court this morning. Got my ass handed to me in a silver platter at trial and the Judge was just..UGH..don't get me started...I needed to vent, what can I say.
No harm, no foul everyone. I just get SO fu*king riled up over the shit opposing counsel pulls on my firm sometimes.
/rant.
Reply
TiredofStrugglin (Aug 4 - 2:38 pm)
i totally hear ya on that. got royally screwed by a judge just the other week... and opposing counsel shenanigans on quite a few cases just keep getting more ridiculous.
Reply
i totally hear ya on that. got royally screwed by a judge just the other week... and opposing counsel shenanigans on quite a few cases just keep getting more ridiculous.
Reply
LexCorde (Aug 3 - 6:33 pm)
Yes I am Real!
Therewillbeblood, as a matter of fact I have had employment opportunities since graduating law school and there are no gaps on my resume. I do not feel depressed but am in fact blessed for such. What about you? Any gaps or depression?
AssociateX, I am sorry but you're out of the loop!
Reply
Yes I am Real!
Therewillbeblood, as a matter of fact I have had employment opportunities since graduating law school and there are no gaps on my resume. I do not feel depressed but am in fact blessed for such. What about you? Any gaps or depression?
AssociateX, I am sorry but you're out of the loop!
Reply
LexCorde (Aug 3 - 9:39 pm)
I never said I wasnt working. I am just not getting paid. So I am looking for paid work.
Reply
I never said I wasnt working. I am just not getting paid. So I am looking for paid work.
Reply
AssociateX (Aug 4 - 11:45 am)
lol so you now unfriend me on FB? wow. real mature.
Good luck in life.
Bye!
Reply
lol so you now unfriend me on FB? wow. real mature.
Good luck in life.
Bye!
Reply
LexCorde (Aug 4 - 1:01 pm)
I am mature. Thanks. And you unfriended me first. Good luck in life to you.
Reply
I am mature. Thanks. And you unfriended me first. Good luck in life to you.
Reply
AssociateX (Aug 4 - 2:02 pm)
I didn't unfriend you. I guess that's the thanks I get for redoing your entire resume. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
Reply
I didn't unfriend you. I guess that's the thanks I get for redoing your entire resume. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
Reply
LexCorde (Aug 4 - 1:10 pm)
Of course we needn't say bye. We can still be colleagues and chat on here.
Reply
Post a message in this threadOf course we needn't say bye. We can still be colleagues and chat on here.
Reply