"Minimum Wage Jobs aren't careers"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

aelreth:
It's easier for the employer to never hire a member of the "protected class" and instead hire someone from the "unprotected class" (the white hetero sexual male) because you can fire the latter much easier than anyone else. That demographic is unlikely pursue any legal acts of retribution.

This is just plain insulting.

White heterosexual males are in no way the most disadvantaged sector of the community in employment. Shall I give you examples of people far more easy to exploit? Four of the most obvious that come to mind are:

1) Illegal immigrants. By their illegality, they have little to no recourse in law to protect their jobs or working conditions.
2) The poverty vulnerable. These are more inclined to put up with shit because a) they can't afford to lose their jobs and b) tend to lack the financial resources to pursue legal recourse.
3) The uneducated / unknowledgable. You can pull any number of fast ones over people who don't know better.
4) Unskilled labourers. Who worries about sacking someone who has no special skills and can easily be replaced by just about anyone else easily?

Of course, 2,3 and 4 tend to apply to the same people, and illegal immigrants tend to be all four.

Some white heterosexual males fit one or more of the above bill. On the other hand, as a group, white heterosexual males are just about the least likely gender/race/sexuality group to be any of the above. White heterosexual males are overwhelmingly American citizens, and have average educations and incomes considerably higher than just about any other ethnic/gender group in the USA. They are also least likely to face employer discrimination in hiring practices - having a black-sounding name or being a woman of childbearing age, for instance, is a significant disadvantage.

aelreth:

Then why did the Harding/Coolidge method correct the stock market crash of 1920 that was more severe than the one in
1929?

Both Hoover and FDR turned to stimulus and government borrowing.

Did these recessions have the same causes - were the circumstances of the US economy the same? Is the stock market the only way to assess recession; does one necessarily equate a stock market crash to a recession? What about unemployment? Size of GDP contraction? Etc.

Let's imagine I said doctors shouldn't remove bullets from people with gunshot wounds because they did it to Alan and he died, and not Bill who survived. Well, okay, but it's a pretty meaningless assessment if Alan was shot in the chest by a dum-dum bullet, left 2 days before medical care which could only be provided in improvised circumstances, whereas Bill was shot through the foot by a conventional round and rushed straight to a fully provisioned emergency department.

Strazdas:

Obiviuosly. But you made it sound like nicotine was the only way for a person to relax and was a necessity, when in reality it is a harmful drug that could be replaced by 5 minute breaks to same relaxation efficiency.
There is no "safe" way to get nicotine, because nicotine itself is harmful.

This discussion however is not a nicotine agianst heroin, but a nicotine not being a necessity to relax.

True, I did.
And true, it's not a necessity.
But it helps. So damn much. ;)

Agema:

The gold standard was and still is a crock of shit, and coming off it was a great help....
I'm not sure how this relates comparatively to Roosevelt - inflation rates in his tenure (before WW2) were comparable to today.

I suggested inflation as a way to get the job creators off their butts, and someone posted FDR tried it and it was a disaster.

So with no big government miracle job, two people face crushing poverty and commit suicide. Why is this an improvement?

Why is it "unjust" for government to employ one person because he's the best man for the job and so condemn a failed applicant to poverty, yet "just" when a private sector employer does the same? There is no sense to this. Why should the private sector get to choose winners either?

Depends on the job. What if the job is make work, to keep someone busy. There is no "best man" in that case. I'd like a freer world in which either man can get a job. In this one, the guy that doesn't get the make work job will feel the drag of its economic impact. (or boost. people have to have money to spend it.)

Strazdas:

And hence these people in the show...will not get a job.

But as a society, we want them getting jobs and learning the ropes. The simple act of having a job and seeing what you need to do better can be socializing.

You are a lazy man. but are you?

Like you wouldn't believe. Or so my wife would tell you.

wanting is very strong.

True, and I have lots of wants. Again, ask my wife why I "need" a PS4.

And yeah, I learned a little guitar and how to cook a meatloaf because I wanted to.

But college? Certifications? That was because I knew I needed to get them to have the kind of future I wanted (health coverage, benefits). Knowing myself, I honestly can't write I'd have bothered if government provided those type of things to me gratis.

aelreth:

Gorfias:

I guess I feel pretty desperate and wanting the government to do something. Today's job market sucks.

You've no doubt heard of the shale oil boom going on in North Dakota where they are simply drilling on private land. They are taking high school diploma achieving workers and giving them very good wages compared to the rest of the country....

I have. I've mentioned it to my boy and you're right. I think he is terrified of leaving the nest. I understand it. In basic training, just like the movies, they remind you that your mama is not here to help you. Those words are very surprisingly effective.

Right now the senate is pushing a bill trying to create another protected class of employees again. It's easier for the employer to never hire a member of the "protected class" and instead hire someone from the "unprotected class" (the white hetero sexual male) because you can fire the latter much easier than anyone else. That demographic is unlikely pursue any legal acts of retribution.

I understand your logic, but even helping choose a hiring committee, I had to ensure protected classes were represented in the committee's formation. When actually choosing the candidate? Maybe not so much. I'll see. I have to think in many cases, Government must create protected classes to deal with the ongoing ramifications of bigotry.

Agema:

aelreth:
It's easier for the employer to never hire a member of the "protected class" and instead hire someone from the "unprotected class" (the white hetero sexual male) because you can fire the latter much easier than anyone else. That demographic is unlikely pursue any legal acts of retribution.

This is just plain insulting.

White heterosexual males are in no way the most disadvantaged sector of the community in employment. Shall I give you examples of people far more easy to exploit? Four of the most obvious that come to mind are:

1) Illegal immigrants. By their illegality, they have little to no recourse in law to protect their jobs or working conditions.
2) The poverty vulnerable. These are more inclined to put up with shit because a) they can't afford to lose their jobs and b) tend to lack the financial resources to pursue legal recourse.
3) The uneducated / unknowledgable. You can pull any number of fast ones over people who don't know better.
4) Unskilled labourers. Who worries about sacking someone who has no special skills and can easily be replaced by just about anyone else easily?

Of course, 2,3 and 4 tend to apply to the same people, and illegal immigrants tend to be all four.

Some white heterosexual males fit one or more of the above bill. On the other hand, as a group, white heterosexual males are just about the least likely gender/race/sexuality group to be any of the above. White heterosexual males are overwhelmingly American citizens, and have average educations and incomes considerably higher than just about any other ethnic/gender group in the USA. They are also least likely to face employer discrimination in hiring practices - having a black-sounding name or being a woman of childbearing age, for instance, is a significant disadvantage.

1) That's why nothing was done about illegal aliens for so long. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. They didn't need to be paid a minimum wage either. They will become liabilities the instant they are legalized. However wall street wants them so they can help write the legislation that keeps them from becoming a liability. After all it hurts their bottom line.

2) You talk as if you have never heard of pro-bono lawyers.

3) The government is in the business of making laws more confusing than they need be. However if the government wasn't in the business of helping the legal industry, those businesses would be using that money to hire and keep better employees than insurance against litigation. Best way to keep good employees is to pay them more.

4) Government action does not occur in a static world people will re/act to avoid pain, when the government moves to help protect young or unskilled workers, it would hurt the very people they are trying to protect.

Yes, citizens typically are authorized to work in the country they reside in, and other countries like the UK frown upon illegal aliens working in their country. Asians also are minorities and don't require the protections that all these other groups need. As for females of child bearing age why would you hire and train someone just to have them disappear for a few months on a paid vacation by you. To justify hiring that person in the first place you already had to determine that your current workforce is stretched too thin. So you need to hire a stand-in. So when the mother returns to work do you want to retrain her and fire the stand-in. Or fire the person that showed up everyday in her place?

I made the mistake of not mentioning in that example that you are the owner of a small business of under 10 employees and you are hiring. Your choice has been narrowed between two equally qualified applicants, one being a minority the other isn't. If you hire the minority this would to be your first minority employee. Any workplace disputes involving this person could be misconstrued as racism and you would be held liable for the actions of not just yourself but your employees. Is it worth the continuation of your business to take this additional risk (any new hire is a risk)? Or could they simply hire the one that won't create this risk?

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

Bentusi16:

So I think what has to happen is the government has got to find a way to get the people with capital to start investing back into the economy and business, not just the extremely rich, but also the middle class.

The problem is that middle class people rarely have the means to. A middle class citizen can't afford to lose 50k€ in an investment gone wrong. However things like kickstarter or crowd funding are helping middle class people making small investments, something which in the past was only possible on the stock market where it's more about playing finance poker by putting money in big firms and getting it out asap. (which i consider to be totally different from "real" investments)

This said, indirectly the middle class is already investing, it's called putting your money in the bank. Because yes it's thanks to deposits banks can actually borrow money to other people or investors. It may not be "investing" strictly speaking but it is an important aspect of entrepreneurship funding.

ShipofFools:
Minimum wage used to be livable, but now it's not enough.
So...

Raise it? I don't know, I'm just a simple guy with simple solutions.

Maybe some well educated spoiled brat can explain the reasoning with keeping people's wages under living conditions.
Is it somehow good for the economy?
I suspect it's good for the economy, specifically the economy of people's wallets. The wallets of people who never have worked minimum wage in their life, is what I'm getting at.

Yeah this is something I've never gotten. At the moment there's a big thing in British politics about naming companies that don't pay employees a living wage. now to me the fact there's a difference between 'minimum' and 'living' wages is utterly baffling. The entire point of a minimum wage is to ensure that you can survive from the fruits of your labour, if that's not the case without government 'top-ups' then it's not functioning as intended and needs fixed.

Minimum wage should be the living wage, otherwise what the hell's the point?

Gorfias:
I suggested inflation as a way to get the job creators off their butts, and someone posted FDR tried it and it was a disaster.

I might suggest that someone is clueless.

Depends on the job. What if the job is make work, to keep someone busy. There is no "best man" in that case. I'd like a freer world in which either man can get a job. In this one, the guy that doesn't get the make work job will feel the drag of its economic impact. (or boost. people have to have money to spend it.)

If we know anything about capitalism, it is that it will never give a society full employment.

Make work is not the end of the world.

Let's imagine the average working year is 1800 hours (not unreasonable), with a minimum wage of $8. That's $14,400 a year. Employing 10 million otherwise unemployed people at minimum wage would therefore cost $144 billion. (Realistically, of course, it'd be rather more with administrative and other costs.) A lot of money. And yet also, in a way, not very much: about 1% of the USA's GDP, or 3% of total (federal & state) tax revenue.

What they were set to do might be pretty useless. But then, even pretty useless work might be better than none at all (some studies suggest unemployment is damaging inherently, irrespective of welfare). And you never know - you might be able to come up with some "make work" jobs that facilitate learning that will be useful for "proper" jobs and make them more employable, too.

Conventional unemployment welfare, though, is even cheaper - society can pay less than minimum wage.

generals3:

Bentusi16:

So I think what has to happen is the government has got to find a way to get the people with capital to start investing back into the economy and business, not just the extremely rich, but also the middle class.

The problem is that middle class people rarely have the means to. A middle class citizen can't afford to lose 50k€ in an investment gone wrong. However things like kickstarter or crowd funding are helping middle class people making small investments, something which in the past was only possible on the stock market where it's more about playing finance poker by putting money in big firms and getting it out asap. (which i consider to be totally different from "real" investments)

This said, indirectly the middle class is already investing, it's called putting your money in the bank. Because yes it's thanks to deposits banks can actually borrow money to other people or investors. It may not be "investing" strictly speaking but it is an important aspect of entrepreneurship funding.

Kickstarter and crowdfounding don't pay back money though. They aren't investments so much as donations.

When I say middle class investment, I mean small businesses.

My family has a saying. "Bars and salons". No matter how bad the economy is, people are going to want to get drunk and look good.

I don't think small businesses can compete in certain fields, but in other fields they definitely can. Bars, restaurants, salons, travel businesses...basically your small sector service stuff. Giving some encouragement for people to invest, really invest, in things could go a long way.

And simply putting money in the bank is not as good as it used to be. yes, it moves a bit. But not nearly as much making businesses and paying employees. It also, unfortunately, relies on the banks being smart about their investments as well.

Bentusi16:

Kickstarter and crowdfounding don't pay back money though. They aren't investments so much as donations.

When I say middle class investment, I mean small businesses.

My family has a saying. "Bars and salons". No matter how bad the economy is, people are going to want to get drunk and look good.

I don't think small businesses can compete in certain fields, but in other fields they definitely can. Bars, restaurants, salons, travel businesses...basically your small sector service stuff. Giving some encouragement for people to invest, really invest, in things could go a long way.

And simply putting money in the bank is not as good as it used to be. yes, it moves a bit. But not nearly as much making businesses and paying employees. It also, unfortunately, relies on the banks being smart about their investments as well.

Are we talking about investing or entrepreneurship here? Both are very dependent. In one case one merely seeds funds and has some sort of influence while in the other one one creates and manages(hopefully).

For the former: one has to know the investment opportunities. Unless you're part of the 3 F's of the one opening a bar/bakery/whatever you'll probably never know there is an investment opportunity. There is little visibility for such investments. And you can't expect these entrepreneurs to knock on people's doors in affluent neighborhoods as to promote their venture to gather investments.

If you mean the latter, usually these people already have jobs. You can't be an entrepreneur and have a full time job. (Well you can if you delegate a lot but than you're just an investor who theoretically has management power)

Agema:

aelreth:

Then why did the Harding/Coolidge method correct the stock market crash of 1920 that was more severe than the one in
1929?

Both Hoover and FDR turned to stimulus and government borrowing.

Did these recessions have the same causes - were the circumstances of the US economy the same? Is the stock market the only way to assess recession; does one necessarily equate a stock market crash to a recession? What about unemployment? Size of GDP contraction? Etc.

Let's imagine I said doctors shouldn't remove bullets from people with gunshot wounds because they did it to Alan and he died, and not Bill who survived. Well, okay, but it's a pretty meaningless assessment if Alan was shot in the chest by a dum-dum bullet, left 2 days before medical care which could only be provided in improvised circumstances, whereas Bill was shot through the foot by a conventional round and rushed straight to a fully provisioned emergency department.

I agree that the stock market isn't a great measure of economic growth because stock prices need to be traded for real goods and services.

"Employment and output were however not as severely affected as in the Great Depression. Of course precise unemployment data are not available for this period, but one representative estimate (Lebergott, 1957) puts civilian unemployment at 2.3% in 1919, 11.9% in 1921, and back to 3.2% in 1923. Output figures tell a similar story: one aggregate index (Mills, 1932) indexes production at 125.3 in 1919, 99.7 in 1921, and rebounding to 145.3 in 1923. As these stylized facts indicate, the second unusual feature of the depression of 1920-21 was the rapid recovery in employment and output, in sync with a swift adjustment of the real wage to its new equilibrium position." Bryan Caplan

I've seen variances of GNP figures between Christina Romer's 2.4% the US commerce Department saying 6.9% and Tom Woods saying 17%.

What's different is the approach that was used by the Harding administration of slashing government spending in half and reducing taxes. Nor were there bailouts for businesses or industries.

Japan also had a horrible recession at the same time in 1920 as detailed in the Economic development of Japan.

"Faced with the onset of a long recessionary period, it is worth noting how the Japanese government reacted. It had two policy options: the one was to rescue weakened industries and banks saddled with bad debt, and the other was
to eliminate inefficient units in order to streamline the economy despite transitional pain. The Japanese government opted for the first. In particular, the Bank of Japan provided emergency loans to ailing banks and industries to avoid further bankruptcies and unemployment. This policy eased the short-term pain but implanted a time bomb in the Japanese economy which exploded several years later." Kenichi Ohno

Those options sound familiar.

aelreth:
2) You talk as if you have never heard of pro-bono lawyers.

Why do people of or near your politics so often seem to assume that charity will adequately resolve problems for the poor? Sure, it can be nice, but it is hardly of appropriate scale to the tasks before it. ABA recommends (does not require) 50 hours of pro bono service per lawyer per year. Two days and two hours of work. That will surely put the fear of legal action in every employer. -_-

If justice relies on people voluntarily doing skilled work for free, that roundly undercuts the notion that the market is a fair arbiter. It is supply and demand, not supply and "please, have pity milord." There is no price signal where there is no price: distribution is, as far as the market is concerned, entirely arbitrary. There is no financial incentive to do the work in the first place, barely any to avoid doing it poorly, and no reason for the cases which need and deserve an attorney's attention most-- but in which the aggrieved party lacks the resources to sustain a lawsuit-- to rise above all the other flotsam.

Why not lose the contradictions and go all in with it? The poor don't deserve good legal representation because they haven't been useful enough to others. Their lack of voice in the legal system is, like their lack of nutrition, education, medical care, and so on, their own fault because the jobs that they do are just of too little worth. It is justice that their legal concerns be ignored because their input to the economy (as measured by the economy's output back to them) has been insufficient. Their lack of power is a result of their lack of sufficient personal worth and is of course a just state of affairs. No?

Gorfias:

I understand your logic, but even helping choose a hiring committee, I had to ensure protected classes were represented in the committee's formation. When actually choosing the candidate? Maybe not so much. I'll see. I have to think in many cases, Government must create protected classes to deal with the ongoing ramifications of bigotry.

I doubt you would knowingly do business with racists and I assume that you think most individuals that make up the society you are a part of wouldn't either. I would rather deal with a racist in the open than deal with them when they keep their mouth shut. What is being created instead with these special groups creates unnecessary conflicts rather than mutual respect.

Communication could allow consumers to be able to discern what kinds of people you want to do business with.

I would theorize that for employers the goal is to find, hire and retain the most valuable employees regardless of identity group. So long as they are a more productive than destructive employee that does not bring their problems to work with them, Do you really care what they do in their spare time?

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:
2) You talk as if you have never heard of pro-bono lawyers.

Why do people of or near your politics so often seem to assume that charity will adequately resolve problems for the poor? Sure, it can be nice, but it is hardly of appropriate scale to the tasks before it. ABA recommends (does not require) 50 hours of pro bono service per lawyer per year. Two days and two hours of work. That will surely put the fear of legal action in every employer. -_-

If justice relies on people voluntarily doing skilled work for free, that roundly undercuts the notion that the market is a fair arbiter. It is supply and demand, not supply and "please, have pity milord." There is no price signal where there is no price: distribution is, as far as the market is concerned, entirely arbitrary. There is no financial incentive to do the work in the first place, barely any to avoid doing it poorly, and no reason for the cases which need and deserve an attorney's attention most-- but in which the aggrieved party lacks the resources to sustain a lawsuit-- to rise above all the other flotsam.

Why not lose the contradictions and go all in with it? The poor don't deserve good legal representation because they haven't been useful enough to others. Their lack of voice in the legal system is, like their lack of nutrition, education, medical care, and so on, their own fault because the jobs that they do are just of too little worth. It is justice that their legal concerns be ignored because their input to the economy (as measured by the economy's output back to them) has been insufficient. Their lack of power is a result of their lack of sufficient personal worth and is of course a just state of affairs. No?

So you would prefer forcing lawyers to work for free?

I would think that new enterprising lawyers would welcome looking at the appraisals for free and simply getting their wages by extracting it from the malefactor business. It also allows them to gain valuable experience, write off these actions on their taxes, and gain more name recognition.

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:
2) You talk as if you have never heard of pro-bono lawyers.

Why do people of or near your politics so often seem to assume that charity will adequately resolve problems for the poor? Sure, it can be nice, but it is hardly of appropriate scale to the tasks before it. ABA recommends (does not require) 50 hours of pro bono service per lawyer per year. Two days and two hours of work. That will surely put the fear of legal action in every employer. -_-

If justice relies on people voluntarily doing skilled work for free, that roundly undercuts the notion that the market is a fair arbiter. It is supply and demand, not supply and "please, have pity milord." There is no price signal where there is no price: distribution is, as far as the market is concerned, entirely arbitrary. There is no financial incentive to do the work in the first place, barely any to avoid doing it poorly, and no reason for the cases which need and deserve an attorney's attention most-- but in which the aggrieved party lacks the resources to sustain a lawsuit-- to rise above all the other flotsam.

Why not lose the contradictions and go all in with it? The poor don't deserve good legal representation because they haven't been useful enough to others. Their lack of voice in the legal system is, like their lack of nutrition, education, medical care, and so on, their own fault because the jobs that they do are just of too little worth. It is justice that their legal concerns be ignored because their input to the economy (as measured by the economy's output back to them) has been insufficient. Their lack of power is a result of their lack of sufficient personal worth and is of course a just state of affairs. No?

So you would prefer forcing lawyers to work for free?

I would think that new enterprising lawyers would welcome looking at the appraisals for free and simply getting their wages by extracting it from the malefactor business. It also allows them to gain valuable experience, write off these actions on their taxes, and gain more name recognition.

No, he would prefer that there be an actual system in place, not that people only worked for "the experience".
Even if it's good for the Pro-bono lawyer a volunteer system is not enough.

aelreth:
So you would prefer forcing lawyers to work for free?

Of course not-- that would suffer most of the same problems as charity does and it would also be a disincentive to enter the legal profession.

What I would prefer is a distribution of wealth which would make anyone able to afford quality legal representation. Supply and demand is a great way of distributing goods and services when all parties have adequate financial resources to make their demands. It loses its way, however, when $100 is spare change to one and two months of food to another. In that case we see resources wasted on pursuing the spare change of the former at the expense of serving the more pressing needs of the latter.

Frission:
No, he would prefer that there be an actual system in place, not that people only worked for "the experience".
Even if it's good for the Pro-bono lawyer a volunteer system is not enough.

This would be second best, and a step in the right direction. :)

Frission:

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

Why do people of or near your politics so often seem to assume that charity will adequately resolve problems for the poor? Sure, it can be nice, but it is hardly of appropriate scale to the tasks before it. ABA recommends (does not require) 50 hours of pro bono service per lawyer per year. Two days and two hours of work. That will surely put the fear of legal action in every employer. -_-

If justice relies on people voluntarily doing skilled work for free, that roundly undercuts the notion that the market is a fair arbiter. It is supply and demand, not supply and "please, have pity milord." There is no price signal where there is no price: distribution is, as far as the market is concerned, entirely arbitrary. There is no financial incentive to do the work in the first place, barely any to avoid doing it poorly, and no reason for the cases which need and deserve an attorney's attention most-- but in which the aggrieved party lacks the resources to sustain a lawsuit-- to rise above all the other flotsam.

Why not lose the contradictions and go all in with it? The poor don't deserve good legal representation because they haven't been useful enough to others. Their lack of voice in the legal system is, like their lack of nutrition, education, medical care, and so on, their own fault because the jobs that they do are just of too little worth. It is justice that their legal concerns be ignored because their input to the economy (as measured by the economy's output back to them) has been insufficient. Their lack of power is a result of their lack of sufficient personal worth and is of course a just state of affairs. No?

So you would prefer forcing lawyers to work for free?

I would think that new enterprising lawyers would welcome looking at the appraisals for free and simply getting their wages by extracting it from the malefactor business. It also allows them to gain valuable experience, write off these actions on their taxes, and gain more name recognition.

No, he would prefer that there be an actual system in place, not that people only worked for "the experience".
Even if it's good for the Pro-bono lawyer a volunteer system is not enough.

They are being paid by getting money from the sued business after they win. Since it's volunteer they can be very picky on which cases to pursue.

If they didn't have a good case in the first place you are just wasting time and resources.

aelreth:
/snip

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:
So you would prefer forcing lawyers to work for free?

Of course not-- that would suffer most of the same problems as charity does and it would also be a disincentive to enter the legal profession.

What I would prefer is a distribution of wealth which would make anyone able to afford quality legal representation. Supply and demand is a great way of distributing goods and services when all parties have adequate financial resources to make their demands. It loses its way, however, when $100 is spare change to one and two months of food to another. In that case we see resources wasted on pursuing the spare change of the former at the expense of serving the more pressing needs of the latter.

This guy has the answer to your question. I just wanted to point out that you misrepresented his argument.

EDIT: Something which I did as well. Sorry about that.

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:
So you would prefer forcing lawyers to work for free?

Of course not-- that would suffer most of the same problems as charity does and it would also be a disincentive to enter the legal profession.

What I would prefer is a distribution of wealth which would make anyone able to afford quality legal representation. Supply and demand is a great way of distributing goods and services when all parties have adequate financial resources to make their demands. It loses its way, however, when $100 is spare change to one and two months of food to another. In that case we see resources wasted on pursuing the spare change of the former at the expense of serving the more pressing needs of the latter.

Simplifying the legal code and removing the requirement for college to take the bar would be an excellent step. This would allow employees to know their rights and people being capable of representing themselves. This would boost the supply greatly.

Also there could be an alternative free-market court system that can be formed within existing contract rights that allow for disputes to be settled there instead of a state court (this would be mutually agreed upon beforehand). This frees up time for the state to better prosecute different disputes or they could still use the state system.

What's more disconcerting is that the United States has an abundance of lawyers yet price of their services have only gone up. Not only that most lawmakers are lawyers, could they be making it easier for their profession to rip off the general public?

aelreth:
What's more disconcerting is that the United States has an abundance of lawyers yet price of their services have only gone up. Not only that most lawmakers are lawyers, could they be making it easier for their profession to rip off the general public?

Like I said, people pursue the spare change of the rich man at the expense of the real needs of the poor man. This is reflected in the price of services. A rich man can pay quite a lot for justice. A poor man cannot. The rich man bids up the price of legal representation. The poor man goes without. This is a result of large degrees of wealth inequality. Simple as that.

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:
What's more disconcerting is that the United States has an abundance of lawyers yet price of their services have only gone up. Not only that most lawmakers are lawyers, could they be making it easier for their profession to rip off the general public?

Like I said, people pursue the spare change of the rich man at the expense of the real needs of the poor man. This is reflected in the price of services. A rich man can pay quite a lot for justice. A poor man cannot. The rich man bids up the price of legal representation. The poor man goes without. This is a result of large degrees of wealth inequality. Simple as that.

Then the government shouldn't be in the business of making higher education so expensive that it turns newly minted lawyers into debt slaves.

Correction, after looking into historical data for legal service prices, there it was only stated as under 3% year over year.

aelreth:

Strazdas:

aelreth:

It just held the people in bondage to an increased debt. The central planning done by the hoover and FDR administrations prolonged the depression. When the additional spending brought about by the war was finally cut the economy did not crash like the Keynesian economists believed, it grew faster.

Because smithsonian economics had no debt. right.
Yeah, i guess its just a coincidence then that the keynsenian spending is directly linked to end of great depresion. but no, it actually prolonged it and everything the history has to say is lies.

Then why did the Harding/Coolidge method correct the stock market crash of 1920 that was more severe than the one in
1929?

Both Hoover and FDR turned to stimulus and government borrowing.

the stock market crash of 1920 that was caused by the end of WW1 has balanced itself despite Hardings methods. Same methods was attempted during the great depression, however without working economy this time actually helpful measures needed to be taken, which meant govermnent stimulus.
In fact, most economist now believe that Coolide policies had very little to do with what made the recovery.

Altrough i would dispute calling it more server than that of 1929. there is a reason we call great depression the wors crysis america ever had.

Super Not Cosmo:

You hit the nail on the head! Myself and my wife, our friends, my parents, all sorts of middle class people I know are simply not spending all that much. My wife and I both are driving cars we've had paid off for multiple years now. We could go out and get new cars but we don't know what direction the economic winds will be blowing next week/month/year. Many of our friends who are also middle class are equally loathe to go out and make any big purchases unless it is absolutely necessary.

This is a common trend from the middle class on up. The middle class aren't buying homes and cars like they once were while the job creators aren't investing in new businesses or expanding current businesses. People simply are unwilling to make any big investments in this economy. It's a safer bet to simply put it into savings and sit on it.

The money simply isn't moving but at a snail's pace. Where a few years ago we'd go out shop on the weekends and buy a new TV or buy a new computer or even go get a different car on a regular basis now we get our checks, pay our bills, and the bulk of the rest goes directly into savings. I think the biggest purchases I've made in the past six months or possibly even year were my new phone and my wife bought a 7" tablet which combined don't even come to 500 dollars.

I guess my flue really got me mixed up now since i could swear in earlier pages you said you lived with your family and didnt have a job and would like a minimum wage one. oh well.
How do you do your savings though? If you save money on an a loan to the bank then you are in fact contributing to supply of capital. or well, you would if banks actually did what they are supposed to.

aelreth:

You've no doubt heard of the shale oil boom going on in North Dakota where they are simply drilling on private land. They are taking high school diploma achieving workers and giving them very good wages compared to the rest of the country. CDL holders are pulling in six figures and McDonalds is hiring for 15 an hour along with a 300 dollar deposit for accepting a position.

Of course no one wants to leave their comfortable life near a city and not in the tundra like conditions of ND. Many states are considering allowing shale drilling including NY & CA. This would work in those areas provided they aren't saddled with additional requirements to get at those resources. If the price is too high to extract the resources the activity simply won't happen and no one would be hired.

The Federal government could be much more aggressive in leasing land to oil companies in federal lands. In my opinion they are acting reluctantly and conveniently forgetting that we are in a bad economic situation. Linking the salary of every member of the department's salary to getting money from the leases rather than taxes would be a good incentive. The feds could also sell all that land out in the western states and the mineral-extraction rights.

Right now the senate is pushing a bill trying to create another protected class of employees again. It's easier for the employer to never hire a member of the "protected class" and instead hire someone from the "unprotected class" (the white hetero sexual male) because you can fire the latter much easier than anyone else. That demographic is unlikely pursue any legal acts of retribution.

So basically you want your government to stop caring about econlogy, long term economics and give away its mineral rights to private entities all for short term economical gain. yeah, we already saw the results of such things. we call them crysies.

Ritualist:

Strazdas:

Obiviuosly. But you made it sound like nicotine was the only way for a person to relax and was a necessity, when in reality it is a harmful drug that could be replaced by 5 minute breaks to same relaxation efficiency.
There is no "safe" way to get nicotine, because nicotine itself is harmful.

This discussion however is not a nicotine agianst heroin, but a nicotine not being a necessity to relax.

True, I did.
And true, it's not a necessity.
But it helps. So damn much. ;)

Except it kinda doesn't. you just think it do therefore it works. the actual physiological effects of nicotine stops being felt very fast after you start smoking, however the psychological effect of "i will feel better after this" remains. smoking is a placebo effect. Sorry, i just made your smoking breaks that much worse.

Gorfias:

But as a society, we want them getting jobs and learning the ropes. The simple act of having a job and seeing what you need to do better can be socializing.

Hence we have a institution called "School" which are required by law to attend. Yes, having a job can be socializing experience, however if,as you say, the person does not even show up for the job, then it cant really be a socializing experience since your not there.

Like you wouldn't believe. Or so my wife would tell you.

Like i said, many people call others lazy when they actually arent.

True, and I have lots of wants. Again, ask my wife why I "need" a PS4.

And yeah, I learned a little guitar and how to cook a meatloaf because I wanted to.

But college? Certifications? That was because I knew I needed to get them to have the kind of future I wanted (health coverage, benefits). Knowing myself, I honestly can't write I'd have bothered if government provided those type of things to me gratis.

What if you had no work and had extra what 10-12 hours a day. Would you spend more time learning to play a guitar or finding different recipees to cook? would you then try to share your cooking skills?

Honestly, i joined university after school to avoid army (university students didnt have to join mandatory army training). Thing is, that was becasue highschool was complete hell to me (think of a bullied kid in a movie and multiply it by 100). When the enviroment changed, i actually liked learning. I liked it so much, that after i finished my bachelors and found a job i joined for masters for no other purpose but because i wanted to learn. Too bad i joined another university, this one does not want you to learn anything, it wants you to sit there for 2 hours and pay them.
Would i have tried to study if i would have had everything before? very likely yes. i like being educated. maybe im weird.

Yes, there will be some freeloaders, there always were. heck, 3000 years ago we had beggers guilds that taught eachother tricks how to be more efficient beggers. Does not mean everyone will be them.

aelreth:
Best way to keep good employees is to pay them more.

Not actually true. Looking at the top 500 companies you will see a trend of how they keep good employees. And thats not by paing them more. thats by actually caring about them. they make the working conditions comfortable, maybe give everyone thier own office if thats the kind of work they do, make restrooms, allow breaks, ect. heck, some even make kindergardens in same building as the factory because then the parent is calm about his child (and can visit during lunchtime and breaks) and is more efficient. money is needed for all this, but not in form of wage. though i gues you could shove that in "benefits" part i guess.

P.S. the whole hire black versus white people discussion going here.... almost make me glad we have a state of 99.9% white cuacasians. thats one less problem to deal with. i mean, im not racist or anything, but its not like we dont have enough problems here already, and yours sounds very nasty one. Bigotry always is.

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:
What's more disconcerting is that the United States has an abundance of lawyers yet price of their services have only gone up. Not only that most lawmakers are lawyers, could they be making it easier for their profession to rip off the general public?

Like I said, people pursue the spare change of the rich man at the expense of the real needs of the poor man. This is reflected in the price of services. A rich man can pay quite a lot for justice. A poor man cannot. The rich man bids up the price of legal representation. The poor man goes without. This is a result of large degrees of wealth inequality. Simple as that.

Then the government shouldn't be in the business of making higher education so expensive that it turns newly minted lawyers into debt slaves.

I think I should ignore whether the premise of that (government is making higher education "so expensive") is true until you explain how it is relevant to my assertion that very wealthy people or interests bid up the price of legal services.

generals3:
This said, indirectly the middle class is already investing, it's called putting your money in the bank. Because yes it's thanks to deposits banks can actually borrow money to other people or investors. It may not be "investing" strictly speaking but it is an important aspect of entrepreneurship funding.

I did point that out earlier too, however this is not strictly true.
First of all, with middle class going down, the saving amount is getting lower and people aren t putting their money in the bank that much. worst are yet those that cash in everything instantly because "cash is better than card", meaning they basically stagnate the currency.
Still the worst offender here is banks. The way you decribe is the way they should work. what they actually do is get rich of trasnfer fees (actually during the crysis trasnfer fees were the highest income out of everything else in banking), trade in stocks, invest in pension funds and give out loans they dont get back, ending up having to sell the property off. the system has dead animals in its wheels and are stopping with a tremble.

Bentusi16:

Kickstarter and crowdfounding don't pay back money though. They aren't investments so much as donations.

When I say middle class investment, I mean small businesses.

My family has a saying. "Bars and salons". No matter how bad the economy is, people are going to want to get drunk and look good.

I don't think small businesses can compete in certain fields, but in other fields they definitely can. Bars, restaurants, salons, travel businesses...basically your small sector service stuff. Giving some encouragement for people to invest, really invest, in things could go a long way.

And simply putting money in the bank is not as good as it used to be. yes, it moves a bit. But not nearly as much making businesses and paying employees. It also, unfortunately, relies on the banks being smart about their investments as well.

Depends on kickstarter though. If by donating money (yes, donating) they are required by law to give you a copy of final product, then it is investment into that product, which may turn out good or horribl or fail on the way and go up in bancrupcy.

Small business is, well, inefficient. they are good for the community, they are great job creators, but when it comes to capitalism, it is more efifcient to have a massive chain (mcdonalds) than many local restuarants. though mcdonals is perhaps a bad example, as it is a franchise type of business, meaning there is a guy that created it, and everyone else pays him for a "license" to use the name. basically Mcdonals in USA and mcdonals in Germany belong to different people.
But yes, people investing money is the only real way to psuh the economy forwards. currently, there is no stimulus to do that. another problem with that is that 99% of small business fail. which is fair enough had it be that not 80% of them fail because people that started it know aboslutely nothing about running a business. you can be a perfect baker but if you think that buying stuff out of your own pocket and selling them bellow the costs price is good business you wont last long. And yes i actually know a real life example of this (but it was not a baker, but a guy selling drinks).

aelreth:

I would theorize that for employers the goal is to find, hire and retain the most valuable employees regardless of identity group. So long as they are a more productive than destructive employee that does not bring their problems to work with them, Do you really care what they do in their spare time?

That's why government does what it can to make it expensive for a business to not attempt to have a diverse workforce. To avoid sanction, businesses pay attention to the need for diversity.

Strazdas:

Gorfias:

But as a society, we want them getting jobs and learning the ropes. The simple act of having a job and seeing what you need to do better can be socializing.

Hence we have a institution called "School" which are required by law to attend. Yes, having a job can be socializing experience, however if,as you say, the person does not even show up for the job, then it cant really be a socializing experience since your not there.

Other than teachers, the kid may be in a school where others are actually a bad influence on the student's behavior. Work is different. You can be fired.

But if a job pays something at least, the kid has a reason to show up. Not reliably, so he may not be worth what a minimum wage, over the counter job demands. That's why we need to lower those demands so there is something out there for the kid.

He may work with others who also at least showed up, which will be a good influence.

It may take time for him/her to be worth more than a couple of bucks an hour, but even a little money can be incredibly motivating and over time, can change the kid's behavior.

What if you had no work and had extra what 10-12 hours a day. Would you spend more time learning to play a guitar or finding different recipees to cook? would you then try to share your cooking skills?

I don't know. My boy plays very good guitar. He would drag me aside and insist on trying to teach me things. That act reinforced his own abilities and was apparantly entertaining to him. I have shown the kids some cooking abilities but partially out of my lazyness. Hoping they will cook more for themselves.

Honestly, i joined university after school to avoid army (university students didnt have to join mandatory army training). Thing is, that was becasue highschool was complete hell to me (think of a bullied kid in a movie and multiply it by 100). When the enviroment changed, i actually liked learning. I liked it so much, that after i finished my bachelors and found a job i joined for masters for no other purpose but because i wanted to learn. Too bad i joined another university, this one does not want you to learn anything, it wants you to sit there for 2 hours and pay them.
Would i have tried to study if i would have had everything before? very likely yes. i like being educated. maybe im weird.

Sorry about your tough highschool years. Grad school can be very aggrevating. I hope you get through it OK.

Good Heinlein story in the book, "Time Enough for Love" called, "The Man Too Lazy to Fail". After an uncomfortable youth plowing fields behind a donkee, he spends his life trying to engage in activities that allow him to sit as much as possible, including school and goes on to become a coast guard pilot.

I admit, college was a way to avoid real employment. Certification? That I got while working. It was just added work. And my point is, I did it because my needs weren't going to be met if I didn't. If government assumes my needs for me, I know it will be demotivating.

If things do get bad for me, without government help? I'll likely be looking for one of those Nort Dakota jobs.

Gorfias:

Strazdas:

Hence we have a institution called "School" which are required by law to attend. Yes, having a job can be socializing experience, however if,as you say, the person does not even show up for the job, then it cant really be a socializing experience since your not there.

Other than teachers, the kid may be in a school where others are actually a bad influence on the student's behavior. Work is different. You can be fired.

But if a job pays something at least, the kid has a reason to show up. Not reliably, so he may not be worth what a minimum wage, over the counter job demands. That's why we need to lower those demands so there is something out there for the kid.

He may work with others who also at least showed up, which will be a good influence.

It may take time for him/her to be worth more than a couple of bucks an hour, but even a little money can be incredibly motivating and over time, can change the kid's behavior.

work can also have a bad influence. ever heard of mobing? or even asshole coleagues? School however at least attempts (as outdated thier models as they are) to control that to a point. yes, you can get fired from work, but that is not related to school really. i wasnt comparing school to work, i was stating that schools exist to prepare people to be better than example you gave.
If a person working shows up - you pay him, if he does not - the hours he didnt work he dont get paid. No reason to pay him less there though. If you count worth as value added - like i said youd have to be pretty much braindead to not be worth minimum wage as it is. If you count it by some arbitrary idea of "i said so", then based on "i said so" everyone is worth living wage, becuase they deserve to live.
We dont need to lower demands. we need to find a way to make them pay higher wages at the expense of their profits. Sadly this is directly opposite to capitalism, hence we got a problem.

What your suggesting is basically slavery as a form of schooling.

Sorry about your tough highschool years. Grad school can be very aggrevating. I hope you get through it OK.

Good Heinlein story in the book, "Time Enough for Love" called, "The Man Too Lazy to Fail". After an uncomfortable youth plowing fields behind a donkee, he spends his life trying to engage in activities that allow him to sit as much as possible, including school and goes on to become a coast guard pilot.

I admit, college was a way to avoid real employment. Certification? That I got while working. It was just added work. And my point is, I did it because my needs weren't going to be met if I didn't. If government assumes my needs for me, I know it will be demotivating.

If things do get bad for me, without government help? I'll likely be looking for one of those Nort Dakota jobs.

How i ended up after those (it wasnt grad school, it was full 12 years like that) is debatable, but thats nt the topic for it.

You think it will be demotivating for you to do things you did, which means you didnt like these things to begin with. my point was that instead you would be doing the work that you like doing. you would still be working, except what you like. like the buy in the story you said.

My gripe with minimum wage jobs is that the toss pot at the top of the chain is on a shit load of money while the underlings have to decide if they want to eat properly all week or socialise on a weekend. I know this because that is what my circumstances have been like for years. I earn a company 10,000 per DAY in my position and yet i'm only worth 14,000 per YEAR. The guy in the office is worth 150,000 a year and spends half his time playing golf and causing problems for his underlings.

In another job i was counting 1-3 million in cash per day and getting paid 12,000 per year. The boss of that company was on 500,000 a year, despite the company failing to make a profit.

The problem we have is that we take too narrow a view on this entire subject. Everyone within a company contributes towards it's overall success but only a couple of them actually get anywhere near what their work is worth in wages. Better distribution of wealth benefits everyone but the top 1%, and frankly who gives a fuck about them?

Strazdas:

What your suggesting is basically slavery as a form of schooling.

I thought much the same about forcing my kid to stay in school (it's the law) when he wasn't benefitting from it, and getting NO pay, far closer to slavery than paying someone their market value.

You think it will be demotivating for you to do things you did, which means you didnt like these things to begin with. my point was that instead you would be doing the work that you like doing. you would still be working, except what you like. like the buy in the story you said.

Oh heck, were it not for the motivation to get the things I need, I'd be drawing super hero comic books instead of *shudders* the horrible crap I have to do to make a living. But our society would be much poorer. I hate my job, but I'm decent at it and our society benefits from this contribution.

Comic book art? I draw a pretty decent Batman, but that's about it.

Strazdas:
I guess my flue really got me mixed up now since i could swear in earlier pages you said you lived with your family and didnt have a job and would like a minimum wage one. oh well.
How do you do your savings though? If you save money on an a loan to the bank then you are in fact contributing to supply of capital. or well, you would if banks actually did what they are supposed to.

Nope, many moons ago I lived at home and worked as a counter jockey for Blockbuster video after I flunked out of college but now the wife and I both have decent paying jobs (I work as a casino manager and she works for the city) and we own our own small home.

We do mostly short term investments. Stuff like money market accounts and CDs mostly. We have a few that are higher risk/reward and our retirement savings obviously but most of our savings are wrapped up in safe low return short term stuff. Ideally we'd like to get out of our little two bedroom home we have now and either have a home built in the next five to ten years or buy my parents' home after my dad retires but we don't want to go crazy in debt to have it done.

As a result of our want of a nicer home combined with the shit our spending habits have pretty much been neutered. Where we once would have went out and bought new cars we've opted to keep our older cars that are paid off. Where we used to go out to the malls almost every weekend we now just sit around the house or go visit her family. Where we used to go out and spend 50-60 bucks on dinner and drinks a few times a week we now eat almost exclusively at home and go out once a month, if that. Where I used to buy multiple new games a month I now do mostly rentals and get by with whatever games come free on PSN Plus.

Of course if things don't turn around some in the next handful of years we may just opt to stick it out in our current house and keep putting our money back until such a time when we won't have to go into debt at all to move into a nicer house regardless of how ripe the housing market might be for home buyers.

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

Like I said, people pursue the spare change of the rich man at the expense of the real needs of the poor man. This is reflected in the price of services. A rich man can pay quite a lot for justice. A poor man cannot. The rich man bids up the price of legal representation. The poor man goes without. This is a result of large degrees of wealth inequality. Simple as that.

Then the government shouldn't be in the business of making higher education so expensive that it turns newly minted lawyers into debt slaves.

I think I should ignore whether the premise of that (government is making higher education "so expensive") is true until you explain how it is relevant to my assertion that very wealthy people or interests bid up the price of legal services.

The free market has created an alternative in legalzoom. Prices are much more affordable than they were in the past.

aelreth:
The free market has created an alternative in legalzoom. Prices are much more affordable than they were in the past.

So what?

None of this changes the fundamental fact that in law, much like anything else, the quality of what you get depends to a very great extent on what you pay for. Lawyer competence relates to lawyer cost. Good lawyers charge plenty, weak lawyers charge less. The former are employed by the rich, and the latter by the poor.

The process of law is thus loaded in favour of people with money.

Lawyers are not going to get infinitely cheaper. It is a skilled, professional job akin to other skilled professional jobs. Long, long, long before the bottom wage of lawyers gets close to minimum wage, lawyers and potential lawyers will exit to other skilled professional jobs that have become more lucrative, and lawyer scarcity will forestall further lawyer salary decrease. That's the free market for you as well.

Agema:

aelreth:
The free market has created an alternative in legalzoom. Prices are much more affordable than they were in the past.

So what?

None of this changes the fundamental fact that in law, much like anything else, the quality of what you get depends to a very great extent on what you pay for. Lawyer competence relates to lawyer cost. Good lawyers charge plenty, weak lawyers charge less. The former are employed by the rich, and the latter by the poor.

The process of law is thus loaded in favour of people with money.

Lawyers are not going to get infinitely cheaper. It is a skilled, professional job akin to other skilled professional jobs. Long, long, long before the bottom wage of lawyers gets close to minimum wage, lawyers and potential lawyers will exit to other skilled professional jobs that have become more lucrative, and lawyer scarcity will forestall further lawyer salary decrease. That's the free market for you as well.

Lawyer scarcity was created by closing the profession off. In the 19th century the profession was open to anyone. There was no need of paying for law school and a bar exam.

It's a cartel. In 1987 Mr Durant the Chairman of the Legal services corporation gave a speech to the ABA where he called for the abolition of the agency and the dissolution of the barriers to competition in the market. As you might have guessed the President of the ABA called for his resignation the very next day.

The Bar association knows that a large number of americans are priced out of the market, instead of a free market that Mr Durant asked for, they lobby for taxpayer money for subsidies.

CannibalCorpses:
I earn a company 10,000 per DAY in my position and yet i'm only worth 14,000 per YEAR.

I have to ask, what are you doing that you think you produce that much on a daily basis?

(don't get me wrong, I agree with your point but 10k a day seems like an awful lot)

aelreth:

Agema:

aelreth:
The free market has created an alternative in legalzoom. Prices are much more affordable than they were in the past.

So what?

None of this changes the fundamental fact that in law, much like anything else, the quality of what you get depends to a very great extent on what you pay for. Lawyer competence relates to lawyer cost. Good lawyers charge plenty, weak lawyers charge less. The former are employed by the rich, and the latter by the poor.

The process of law is thus loaded in favour of people with money.

Lawyers are not going to get infinitely cheaper. It is a skilled, professional job akin to other skilled professional jobs. Long, long, long before the bottom wage of lawyers gets close to minimum wage, lawyers and potential lawyers will exit to other skilled professional jobs that have become more lucrative, and lawyer scarcity will forestall further lawyer salary decrease. That's the free market for you as well.

Lawyer scarcity was created by closing the profession off. In the 19th century the profession was open to anyone. There was no need of paying for law school and a bar exam.

None of that challenges Agema's point: "... the quality of what you get depends to a very great extent on what you pay for. Lawyer competence relates to lawyer cost. Good lawyers charge plenty, weak lawyers charge less. The former are employed by the rich, and the latter by the poor."

While not terribly relevant, this may still be worth addressing:

aelreth:
It's a cartel. In 1987 Mr Durant the Chairman of the Legal services corporation gave a speech to the ABA where he called for the abolition of the agency and the dissolution of the barriers to competition in the market. As you might have guessed the President of the ABA called for his resignation the very next day.

Calling for the dissolution of a private voluntary organization is really not the best way of achieving a free market in anything. That being said, eroding the requirements to practice law (which are imposed locally by each jurisdiction of the United States, not nationally by some shadowy cabal) exchanges a guarantee of some quality for some amount of quantity and is quite likely to lead to legal malpractice and just extremely poor representation. It is not as if a free market would lack use for ways of determining whether someone is qualified to practice law-- and you can guess that the credible of the organizations involved in verifying whether someone is qualified would impose requirements like passing a written exam or graduating from an accredited law school. Professional organizations arise naturally.

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:

Agema:

So what?

None of this changes the fundamental fact that in law, much like anything else, the quality of what you get depends to a very great extent on what you pay for. Lawyer competence relates to lawyer cost. Good lawyers charge plenty, weak lawyers charge less. The former are employed by the rich, and the latter by the poor.

The process of law is thus loaded in favour of people with money.

Lawyers are not going to get infinitely cheaper. It is a skilled, professional job akin to other skilled professional jobs. Long, long, long before the bottom wage of lawyers gets close to minimum wage, lawyers and potential lawyers will exit to other skilled professional jobs that have become more lucrative, and lawyer scarcity will forestall further lawyer salary decrease. That's the free market for you as well.

Lawyer scarcity was created by closing the profession off. In the 19th century the profession was open to anyone. There was no need of paying for law school and a bar exam.

None of that challenges Agema's point: "... the quality of what you get depends to a very great extent on what you pay for. Lawyer competence relates to lawyer cost. Good lawyers charge plenty, weak lawyers charge less. The former are employed by the rich, and the latter by the poor."

While not terribly relevant, this may still be worth addressing:

Lawyers are commonly leveraged up by debt accrued to navigate the gauntlet of licensing. By keeping the system in place that creates a high monetary hurdle to enter the profession, it means that lawyers that may otherwise be helping those less fortunate need to take wealthier clients to balance their own ledgers.

Seanchaidh:

Calling for the dissolution of a private voluntary organization is really not the best way of achieving a free market in anything. That being said, eroding the requirements to practice law (which are imposed locally by each jurisdiction of the United States, not nationally by some shadowy cabal) exchanges a guarantee of some quality for some amount of quantity and is quite likely to lead to legal malpractice and just extremely poor representation. It is not as if a free market would lack use for ways of determining whether someone is qualified to practice law-- and you can guess that the credible of the organizations involved in verifying whether someone is qualified would impose requirements like passing a written exam or graduating from an accredited law school. Professional organizations arise naturally.

Then remove the statutes. There are other private organizations that provide the same service as the ABA in different sectors without the barriers that the statutes create.

As someone that works in the IT field I encourage people being able to do things on their own rather than overpay some expert. This is what the legal profession does.

"They also go after people who publish books providing information to those who wish to handle their own legal problems. Thirty years ago, the New York Bar agitated against Norman Dacey's How To Avoid Probate! but the New York Court of Appeals refused to go along with the bar's effort to suppress the book.

In Texas, the State Bar has undertaken an "investigation" of Nolo Press of Berkeley, California, a publisher of self-help legal books. The Bar's UPL Committee told Nolo that it must appear and answer the charge that, by selling books and software that enable individuals to do their own legal work, the company is guilty of "practicing law" without a license. Texas precedents are on the Bar's side." -George Leef

In one case with NY the state court actually sides with the little guy but in Texas they do not.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked