"Minimum Wage Jobs aren't careers"

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

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:

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.

Once again, you seem to think charity will adequately address a problem. But rational, self-interested individuals tend to like maximizing their profits no matter the state of their ledgers. Yeah, people of sympathy and good will can forsake profit in order to help the destitute-- sure. Does the free market reward such behavior? No. They do that while the bastards laugh all the way to the bank.

aelreth:

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.

Why remove the statutes? Professional organizations arising naturally is no reason not to strengthen protections against the very real and valid concerns they address by legislation.

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.

An internet outage or not being able to access one's email is usually more recoverable and less important than a criminal conviction or any other unfavorable outcome of a trial. The legal profession is not one in which malpractice can be tolerated, so any weakness in certification and qualification must be counterbalanced by readily accessible means to deter and punish bad service. Sufficiently severe doses of the latter might abrogate the need for the former, but to no discernible point since the deterrence and punishment of bad service would push the price up just the same by increasing risk to the lawyer. Licensing has the advantage of verifying some level of competence beforehand, whereas the 'free market' encourages someone to make the mistake of hiring a bad lawyer before they've accumulated a reputation for bad service. It is the same reason there are licenses to practice medicine-- we would rather not have any psycho with a hacksaw offering thoracic surgery even if eventually people figured out that he has no idea what he's doing, or no intention to actually do it well. (But low, low prices! :D Gimble's Discount Triple Bypass!) The severity may not be quite as high, but the principle is the same. The utility of these statutes, of course, varies with the severity of the consequences of bad service.

None of your argument addresses the concern that legal service is not commoditized: the quality of it matters. Merely increasing quantity, especially by weakening standards and removing licenses, does not improve quality of service at the lower end of the scale. The opportunity cost of pursuing a suit by itself (nevermind the price demanded by the attorney) may not be worth the chance of losing with poor representation.

aelreth:
"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.

It's a legal grey area. Such books do seem to constitute providing legal advice. This book publishing company is not, however, "the little guy", and selling people the idea that they can adequately represent themselves in court at best straddles the line between helpful and harmful.

Seanchaidh:

Once again, you seem to think charity will adequately address a problem. But rational, self-interested individuals tend to like maximizing their profits no matter the state of their ledgers. Yeah, people of sympathy and good will can forsake profit in order to help the destitute-- sure. Does the free market reward such behavior? No. They do that while the bastards laugh all the way to the bank.

Actually it does reward that behavior, other individuals like doing business with people of good will. It's in their rational self interest to do so.

aelreth:

Why remove the statutes? Professional organizations arising naturally is no reason not to strengthen protections against the very real and valid concerns they address by legislation.

Other sectors are perfectly capable of functioning without such statutes. There are standards and there are laws. Someone contracts me to do something to a set standard. If I fail to do so I am in breach of contract and I must restore the victim.

Seanchaidh:

An internet outage or not being able to access one's email is usually more recoverable and less important than a criminal conviction or any other unfavorable outcome of a trial. The legal profession is not one in which malpractice can be tolerated, so any weakness in certification and qualification must be counterbalanced by readily accessible means to deter and punish bad service. Sufficiently severe doses of the latter might abrogate the need for the former, but to no discernible point since the deterrence and punishment of bad service would push the price up just the same. Licensing has the advantage of verifying some level of competence beforehand, whereas the 'free market' encourages someone to make the mistake of hiring a bad lawyer before they've accumulated a reputation for bad service. It is the same reason there are licenses to practice medicine-- we would rather not have any psycho with a hacksaw offering thoracic surgery.

I am referring to standards in the IT field known as EIA/TIA, these are not laws but international industrial standards. Without these, it's highly unlikely the commercial internet could have been viable.

Have you ever looked at the requirement to successfully prosecute Legal malpractice? A tall order. It's also quite rare, yet there are bad lawyers in existence. Could it be that the law was written that way?

If your goal is certification, first the industry must create a standard then they should create a test where the applicant must prove that they know the standard. If they are unable to maintain that standard in the course of their duties they are subject to breach of contract and must pay restitution to the victim.

Seanchaidh:

And none of this addresses the concern that legal service is not commoditized: the quality of it matters. Merely increasing quantity, especially by weakening standards, does not improve the quality at the lower end of the scale.

To reiterate standards need not be put in place by the state.

Seanchaidh:

It's a legal grey area. Such books do seem to constitute providing legal advice. This book publishing company is not, however, "the little guy", and selling people the idea that they can adequately represent themselves in court straddles the line between helpful and harmful.

The publishing house is an outdated gatekeeper of authors, however is the author the little guy or not?

Or do you want only people that are experts in any subject to be the only ones that can talk about something?

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

Once again, you seem to think charity will adequately address a problem. But rational, self-interested individuals tend to like maximizing their profits no matter the state of their ledgers. Yeah, people of sympathy and good will can forsake profit in order to help the destitute-- sure. Does the free market reward such behavior? No. They do that while the bastards laugh all the way to the bank.

Actually it does reward that behavior, other individuals like doing business with people of good will. It's in their rational self interest to do so.

Really? Have you measured? How much does this make a difference? How does it compare to a targeted marketing campaign?

aelreth:

aelreth:

Why remove the statutes? Professional organizations arising naturally is no reason not to strengthen protections against the very real and valid concerns they address by legislation.

Other sectors are perfectly capable of functioning without such statutes. There are standards and there are laws. Someone contracts me to do something to a set standard. If I fail to do so I am in breach of contract and I must restore the victim.

Unless you can win in court. Not only do the poor have a better chance of having worse legal representation, they have a worse chance of being able to seek compensation for it because they need good enough legal representation to do so. And the decision to pursue a suit is much more risky as well: money is simply worth more to poor people than it is to wealthier people because of diminishing marginal utility.

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

An internet outage or not being able to access one's email is usually more recoverable and less important than a criminal conviction or any other unfavorable outcome of a trial. The legal profession is not one in which malpractice can be tolerated, so any weakness in certification and qualification must be counterbalanced by readily accessible means to deter and punish bad service. Sufficiently severe doses of the latter might abrogate the need for the former, but to no discernible point since the deterrence and punishment of bad service would push the price up just the same. Licensing has the advantage of verifying some level of competence beforehand, whereas the 'free market' encourages someone to make the mistake of hiring a bad lawyer before they've accumulated a reputation for bad service. It is the same reason there are licenses to practice medicine-- we would rather not have any psycho with a hacksaw offering thoracic surgery.

I am referring to standards in the IT field known as EIA/TIA, these are not laws but international industrial standards. Without these, it's highly unlikely the commercial internet could have been viable.

Ok?

aelreth:
Have you ever looked at the requirement to successfully prosecute Legal malpractice? A tall order. It's also quite rare, yet there are bad lawyers in existence. Could it be that the law was written that way?

If it was easier to punish legal malpractice, and the consequences more severe, then the risk to lawyers would be higher and therefore prices would be higher.

aelreth:
If your goal is certification, first the industry must create a standard then they should create a test where the applicant must prove that they know the standard. If they are unable to maintain that standard in the course of their duties they are subject to breach of contract and must pay restitution to the victim.

So, basically, what the various bar organizations for state and local jurisdictions have done? This needs changing why? Changing this helps poor people get better legal service how?

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

And none of this addresses the concern that legal service is not commoditized: the quality of it matters. Merely increasing quantity, especially by weakening standards, does not improve the quality at the lower end of the scale.

To reiterate standards need not be put in place by the state.

And..?

There are plenty of things that needn't happen, but nevertheless we should want to happen. You have still yet to show that randomly tossing aside status quo would be helpful to poor people seeking legal representation. Gesturing at some unclear notion of a possibly different system is not a persuasive argument in favor of change. It also doesn't address improving the situation of the poor with regard to legal representation. That the legal system could become more in line with your ideological presumptions is of no particular concern to me.

How. Would. Changing. This. Help?

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

It's a legal grey area. Such books do seem to constitute providing legal advice. This book publishing company is not, however, "the little guy", and selling people the idea that they can adequately represent themselves in court straddles the line between helpful and harmful.

The publishing house is an outdated gatekeeper of authors, however is the author the little guy or not?

Or do you want only people that are experts in any subject to be the only ones that can talk about something?

I'm not really interested in splitting hairs over someone's 'size'. In this case, size matters less than culpability and harm or the possible lack thereof. It is also not very germane to the discussion.

Seanchaidh:

Really? Have you measured? How much does this make a difference? How does it compare to a targeted marketing campaign?

Like organic food instead of GMO food?

Seanchaidh:

Unless you can win in court. Not only do the poor have a better chance of having worse legal representation, they have a worse chance of being able to seek compensation for it because they need good enough legal representation to do so. And the decision to pursue a suit is much more risky as well: money is simply worth more to poor people than it is to wealthier people because of diminishing marginal utility.

So now they have representation, I thought you were arguing that they didn't have any. Quality comes with experience. Experience only comes with activity. My methods allow more people to become active in the field. If they fail, you can always toss the consul and start the trial over.

Seanchaidh:

If it was easier to punish legal malpractice, and the consequences more severe, then the risk to lawyers would be higher and therefore prices would be higher.

Actually they already pay malpractice insurance.

Seanchaidh:

So, basically, what the various bar organizations for state and local jurisdictions have done? This needs changing why? Changing this helps poor people get better legal service how?

Arizona is already doing things by my methods.

Seanchaidh:

And none of this addresses the concern that legal service is not commoditized: the quality of it matters. Merely increasing quantity, especially by weakening standards, does not improve the quality at the lower end of the scale.

So bringing in someone like Abraham Lincoln diminishes quality. I'm discussing a system that produces men like him.

Seanchaidh:

There are plenty of things that needn't happen, but nevertheless we should want to happen. You have still yet to show that randomly tossing aside status quo would be helpful to poor people seeking legal representation. Gesturing at some unclear notion of a possibly different system is not a persuasive argument in favor of change. It also doesn't address improving the situation of the poor with regard to legal representation. That the legal system could become more in line with your ideological presumptions is of no particular concern to me.

How. Would. Changing. This. Help?

A new system? This is exchanging the current broken system with the old one.

The reasoning when these statutes were made was that this would help the consumer. Unfortunately it caused less people to be to partake in this activity.

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

Once again, you seem to think charity will adequately address a problem. But rational, self-interested individuals tend to like maximizing their profits no matter the state of their ledgers. Yeah, people of sympathy and good will can forsake profit in order to help the destitute-- sure. Does the free market reward such behavior? No. They do that while the bastards laugh all the way to the bank.

Actually it does reward that behavior, other individuals like doing business with people of good will. It's in their rational self interest to do so.

Really? Have you measured? How much does this make a difference? How does it compare to a targeted marketing

Last charity function I went to, I watched a room full of businessmen raise a quarter-million dollars in straight-forward donations toward medical research in 20 minutes. That doesn't count auction proceeds, etc. They do that every year.

Agitated Owl:

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:

Actually it does reward that behavior, other individuals like doing business with people of good will. It's in their rational self interest to do so.

Really? Have you measured? How much does this make a difference? How does it compare to a targeted marketing

Last charity function I went to, I watched a room full of businessmen raise a quarter-million dollars in straight-forward donations toward medical research in 20 minutes. That doesn't count auction proceeds, etc. They do that every year.

I think Seanchaidh is looking for proof that giving charity rewards the businessmen for their contributions. Obviously good-will will increase your business as people would rather give their money to the nice company then the douche company, but how much does it increase and does this increase offset the cost of the charity? Not to mention that the good-will created has to create more profits than, as mentioned, a marketing campaign that costs the same amount.

And, a little off topic, but a quarter million dollars, plus whatever the extra is once a year isn't that much in the grand scheme of things.

Agitated Owl:

Seanchaidh:

aelreth:

Actually it does reward that behavior, other individuals like doing business with people of good will. It's in their rational self interest to do so.

Really? Have you measured? How much does this make a difference? How does it compare to a targeted marketing

Last charity function I went to, I watched a room full of businessmen raise a quarter-million dollars in straight-forward donations toward medical research in 20 minutes. That doesn't count auction proceeds, etc. They do that every year.

I'm not sure you're following the conversation...

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

Really? Have you measured? How much does this make a difference? How does it compare to a targeted marketing campaign?

Like organic food instead of GMO food?

What about it?

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

Unless you can win in court. Not only do the poor have a better chance of having worse legal representation, they have a worse chance of being able to seek compensation for it because they need good enough legal representation to do so. And the decision to pursue a suit is much more risky as well: money is simply worth more to poor people than it is to wealthier people because of diminishing marginal utility.

So now they have representation, I thought you were arguing that they didn't have any. Quality comes with experience. Experience only comes with activity. My methods allow more people to become active in the field. If they fail, you can always toss the consul and start the trial over.

Everything is always a matter of degrees. For the most part, they don't. Some people are poorer than others, and some people have more need of legal representation than others. In the scenario that was under discussion-- unregulated legal representation and the assumption that this would increase access by removing barriers of entry to the profession-- poor people might have representation but it would in many cases be so poor and haphazard as to make trying a case a waste of time, effort, and resources.

To get back to what I believe to be the thrust of Agema's bringing up the lack of legal recourse for the poor, this is why we tackle many problems of the poor through legislation rather than by trusting that the legal system will work things out for them, that their contracts will all be perfectly enforced, and so on. As I was saying, free markets work great when everyone's resources are more or less equal: people make decisions about their priorities and goods and services are distributed according to how much people want or need them. But when there is severe wealth inequality, the concerns of the wealthy simply have a greater voice, and protecting your own rights in a free market through any means-- legal, illegal, formal, informal, political, or whatever-- all of these require some degree of wealth to be effective. The poor person is making decisions about whether to attempt to enforce his rights legally or whether to eat or treat an illness, whereas the wealthy person is making decisions about whether to enforce his rights legally or buy some luxury (or just have a larger pile of money.) For the same amount of money an entirely different character of choice.

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

If it was easier to punish legal malpractice, and the consequences more severe, then the risk to lawyers would be higher and therefore prices would be higher.

Actually they already pay malpractice insurance.

You don't say!

Something important to understand about insurance is that it costs more when there is more risk of a large claim. So prices would be higher or, one might suppose, less people would be willing to practice law. One or the other or both because TANSTAAFL and people respond to incentives and the laws of supply and demand, etc.

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

So, basically, what the various bar organizations for state and local jurisdictions have done? This needs changing why? Changing this helps poor people get better legal service how?

Arizona is already doing things by my methods.

Good (possibly bad) for Arizona..?

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

And none of this addresses the concern that legal service is not commoditized: the quality of it matters. Merely increasing quantity, especially by weakening standards, does not improve the quality at the lower end of the scale.

So bringing in someone like Abraham Lincoln diminishes quality. I'm discussing a system that produces men like him.

Does Abraham Lincoln comprise an entire legal system? Is Abraham Lincoln incapable of taking a bar exam or making the life decisions that would place him in a law school? And if not, would that still be the case with a more equal distribution of wealth?

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

There are plenty of things that needn't happen, but nevertheless we should want to happen. You have still yet to show that randomly tossing aside status quo would be helpful to poor people seeking legal representation. Gesturing at some unclear notion of a possibly different system is not a persuasive argument in favor of change. It also doesn't address improving the situation of the poor with regard to legal representation. That the legal system could become more in line with your ideological presumptions is of no particular concern to me.

How. Would. Changing. This. Help?

A new system? This is exchanging the current broken system with the old one.

The reasoning when these statutes were made was that this would help the consumer. Unfortunately it caused less people to be to partake in this activity.

Yes, taking steps to remove charlatans from a profession would cause there to be less people in that profession because charlatans = people. Amazing. Having professional standards and accountability would contract the size of the industry. Also, higher quality products tend to be more expensive.

Gorfias:

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.

So then you claim that education is no beneffit and cannot work as an investment into persons future, however making them work whole day at that age for pay they cant even survive on is benficial, paying thier market value and its ok that thier life expectency back when this was the case was hardly even 30 years, right? thats one wicked way of looking at things you got here.
Do you think society cannot benefit from you drawing super hero comic books then? because i would say it can, and that it would in fact benefit more had you be doing a job you actually enjoy, thus actually trying to do it will instead of just enough to get paid.

Super Not Cosmo:

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.

I mixed you up with another poster here. Sorry for that. You kinda missed the house market. had you bought it during the rash from those banks selling them off you would ahve bought it for half the price. of course i dont know if you even had a chage of doing that back then. But housing is kinda tricky when buying it, as usually you have best opportunities at times when the prices are actually the highest. but you seem to have it figured out quite well i see so i dont need to tell you that.
I would of course coudl argue that house so bit is not necessary to begin with, but i know how americans love thier big wasted space.

aelreth:

Seanchaidh:

Really? Have you measured? How much does this make a difference? How does it compare to a targeted marketing campaign?

Like organic food instead of GMO food?

Please explain, becasue i do not see a connection here. Implying that bad, unheathy service is much more popular while better, more expensive exists, at acess only to the rich?
Besides, you probably shouldnt have used GMO to begin with, as Gentic modification isnt hardful to begin with. you probably mean food where actual food is exchanged by things like soy[1].

So bringing in someone like Abraham Lincoln diminishes quality. I'm discussing a system that produces men like him.

If we are bringing in 1 Abragam Lincoln and 10.000 lawyers who dont even know what they are talking about - yes, it diminishes quality. Anarcy would allow Abraham Lincoln to exist too, but i doubt many would agree to it being a good system.

A new system? This is exchanging the current broken system with the old one.

The reasoning when these statutes were made was that this would help the consumer. Unfortunately it caused less people to be to partake in this activity.

You still havent explained why your new system would improve anything.

Agitated Owl:

Last charity function I went to, I watched a room full of businessmen raise a quarter-million dollars in straight-forward donations toward medical research in 20 minutes. That doesn't count auction proceeds, etc. They do that every year.

You are aware of the practice of tax evasion via charity, where they would actually get more tax breaks due to % going lower based on aboslute amounts of charity, if the earnings are high enough. very likely they did that to actually scam their government out of the taxes.

[1] whis i still food, but quite useless to the body

aelreth:

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.

This does nothing to refute my point that irrespective of whether the entry level of the profession is regulated, more money hires better lawyers.

It does nothing to argue against the point that law is a skilled, professional practice that requires relatively high talent individuals merely to perform adequately. If it does not pay comparable to professions that also require similar skill and talent levels (accountancy, management, etc.) then people with those skill/talent capabilities will not do law.

But then it gets even worse.

Reducing regulation of standards may increase entry quantity, but it also means greatly increasing the number of incompetent lawyers (because the incompetent are by far the greatest beneficiaries of reduced competency standards). Who, by nature of their incompetence, can't charge much money and so are hired by poor people thus making the poor even more likely to lose their cases. The particularly unscrupulous could even just move to another town/state where their law reputations aren't ruined and screw over a whole new set of unwitting customers.

You want to argue the free market, you can damn well accept the principles of the free market, which state you get what you pay for, and if you pay more you are apt to get better goods and services. And this includes the bedrock of society that is the law.

aelreth:

Actually it does reward that behavior, other individuals like doing business with people of good will. It's in their rational self interest to do so.

No it is not.

The ultimate rational self-interest of anyone hiring a lawyer is to win their court case. Therefore the vast majority of customers do not pass over greedy lawyers that have a high chance of winning the court case in order to hire a charitable lawyer that is less likely to. Therefore lawyers have minimal cost in not being charitable, and so it is in their rational self-interest to be minimally charitable.

Unless, of course, you call lawyers who happen to have naturally good, charitable natures doing charity acting in their own rational self interest. But you don't base an institutional system on the hope that it's going to be filled with good, charitable people: because it's prone to not happen.

Strazdas:

Gorfias:

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.

So then you claim that education is no beneffit and cannot work as an investment into persons future

I claim it was no benefit to my own son for a number of years during which he, individually, would have been better off engaged in something less like slavery, something that actually paid him a market rate. He could always go back to school later. I've had the argument about this sort of thing in the past with Agema. We ultimately really couldn't agree on it (leave school, go back later vs. keep them in school.)

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.

[quote] Do you think society cannot benefit from you drawing super hero comic books then? because i would say it can, and that it would in fact benefit more had you be doing a job you actually enjoy, thus actually trying to do it will instead of just enough to get paid.

I have to disagree. My current work is utilized by and benefits thousands of people. No one would read a Batman comic book I drew without a gun to their head. Unfortunate.

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.

Damn good reasoning, sir.

Some people just have so much wool over their eyes, probably from having lived well above low income levels for a long, long time. (Generations, probably.)

Captcha: trickle down

Fuck you captcha. Trickle down economics are retarded.

Agema:
This does nothing to refute my point that irrespective of whether the entry level of the profession is regulated, more money hires better lawyers.

It does nothing to argue against the point that law is a skilled, professional practice that requires relatively high talent individuals merely to perform adequately. If it does not pay comparable to professions that also require similar skill and talent levels (accountancy, management, etc.) then people with those skill/talent capabilities will not do law.

But then it gets even worse.

Reducing regulation of standards may increase entry quantity, but it also means greatly increasing the number of incompetent lawyers (because the incompetent are by far the greatest beneficiaries of reduced competency standards). Who, by nature of their incompetence, can't charge much money and so are hired by poor people thus making the poor even more likely to lose their cases. The particularly unscrupulous could even just move to another town/state where their law reputations aren't ruined and screw over a whole new set of unwitting customers.

You want to argue the free market, you can damn well accept the principles of the free market, which state you get what you pay for, and if you pay more you are apt to get better goods and services. And this includes the bedrock of society that is the law.

The ultimate irony is that law in the US is one of the least-regulated professions in the country (with maybe non-broadcast, non-pornographic media as being even less regulated), as many if not most states have their bar association as a non-state entity that regulates the profession, with membership and malpractice claims being the cudgels to enforce a minimum level of quality and ethics. If you screw up as an attorney and breach ethics, you can have your membership suspended or disbarred (usually reserved for fraud, criminal activity, or patterns of behavior which suggest potential serious damage to clients), preventing you from practicing law within the state (and others), which is known to the public as almost every bar gives public notice of discipline.

To further deregulate the legal profession, you'd effectively have to get rid of these organizations that insure the minimum levels of quality, de facto opening the door for unethical and fraudulent practices of law, as there would be no enforcement mechanisms left for those who win cases with underhanded methods (malpractice suits for lost cases effectively require proving the client would have prevailed but for the actions of the lawyer that deviated from the reasonable actions of the lawyer).

Additionally, not all Americans are priced out of the market, at least for most tort claims (contract claims vary heavily by contract provisions, which can include controls on attorney fee allotment). They get around this through using a "contingent fee," where the fee is a prearranged percentage of the damages from trial or settlement (there are some explicit requirements for a contingent fee, such as a client-signed writing detailing all key aspects of the fee structure). The catch is that most attorney's who use contingent fees only use them for almost-guaranteed wins in personal injury suits and they are barred from using them in criminal and certain family law cases.

Seanchaidh:

What about it?

It's a different product that is competing against an established product without regulation.

Seanchaidh:

Everything is always a matter of degrees. For the most part, they don't. Some people are poorer than others, and some people have more need of legal representation than others. In the scenario that was under discussion-- unregulated legal representation and the assumption that this would increase access by removing barriers of entry to the profession-- poor people might have representation but it would in many cases be so poor and haphazard as to make trying a case a waste of time, effort, and resources.

Poor people wouldn't require taking the resource of a legal representative with an extremely diverse knowledge in different fields. Instead they could use lawyers with a narrower knowledge field. These would be easier to train because of a smaller amount of information they need to learn to be qualified.

Required skill sets can be mandated not in code of law but with industry standards.

Seanchaidh:

To get back to what I believe to be the thrust of Agema's bringing up the lack of legal recourse for the poor, this is why we tackle many problems of the poor through legislation rather than by trusting that the legal system will work things out for them, that their contracts will all be perfectly enforced, and so on. As I was saying, free markets work great when everyone's resources are more or less equal: people make decisions about their priorities and goods and services are distributed according to how much people want or need them. But when there is severe wealth inequality, the concerns of the wealthy simply have a greater voice, and protecting your own rights in a free market through any means-- legal, illegal, formal, informal, political, or whatever-- all of these require some degree of wealth to be effective. The poor person is making decisions about whether to attempt to enforce his rights legally or whether to eat or treat an illness, whereas the wealthy person is making decisions about whether to enforce his rights legally or buy some luxury (or just have a larger pile of money.) For the same amount of money an entirely different character of choice.

With barriers to trade lifted lawyers with more narrow and explicit skill sets could satisfy that demand.

aelreth:

Something important to understand about insurance is that it costs more when there is more risk of a large claim. So prices would be higher or, one might suppose, less people would be willing to practice law. One or the other or both because TANSTAAFL and people respond to incentives and the laws of supply and demand, etc.

In all markets when prices rise, there is enough interest to attract people into providing supply. This pushes prices down.

Seanchaidh:

Does Abraham Lincoln comprise an entire legal system? Is Abraham Lincoln incapable of taking a bar exam or making the life decisions that would place him in a law school? And if not, would that still be the case with a more equal distribution of wealth?

Correct, Abraham Lincolns path in life would not place him in a law school. I use him as a famous example, there were plenty of people that learned litigation in the same way, he just rose to a very exclusive position.

Seanchaidh:

Yes, taking steps to remove charlatans from a profession would cause there to be less people in that profession because charlatans = people. Amazing. Having professional standards and accountability would contract the size of the industry. Also, higher quality products tend to be more expensive.

Higher prices equate to interest in people entering the field. The high cost entry bars many from entering it.

Agema:

aelreth:

Actually it does reward that behavior, other individuals like doing business with people of good will. It's in their rational self interest to do so.

No it is not.

The ultimate rational self-interest of anyone hiring a lawyer is to win their court case. Therefore the vast majority of customers do not pass over greedy lawyers that have a high chance of winning the court case in order to hire a charitable lawyer that is less likely to. Therefore lawyers have minimal cost in not being charitable, and so it is in their rational self-interest to be minimally charitable.

Unless, of course, you call lawyers who happen to have naturally good, charitable natures doing charity acting in their own rational self interest. But you don't base an institutional system on the hope that it's going to be filled with good, charitable people: because it's prone to not happen.

True.

Yet people are willing to overpay for something because they feel good about it. They are also willing to buy something entirely if they feel good about it. Marketing a product as one that helps others does create interest in it that would otherwise not be there. A lawyer can market himself by doing pro-bono work only to turn around and charge people that can afford it quite a sum. This benefits both the poor that had their work done for free, the lawyer who gets name recognition and a person that can afford it a legal representative with experience. More importantly they don't have to advertise as much.

Very nice tongue in cheek humor on the last point though.

Agema:

This does nothing to refute my point that irrespective of whether the entry level of the profession is regulated, more money hires better lawyers.

It does nothing to argue against the point that law is a skilled, professional practice that requires relatively high talent individuals merely to perform adequately. If it does not pay comparable to professions that also require similar skill and talent levels (accountancy, management, etc.) then people with those skill/talent capabilities will not do law.

But then it gets even worse.

Reducing regulation of standards may increase entry quantity, but it also means greatly increasing the number of incompetent lawyers (because the incompetent are by far the greatest beneficiaries of reduced competency standards). Who, by nature of their incompetence, can't charge much money and so are hired by poor people thus making the poor even more likely to lose their cases. The particularly unscrupulous could even just move to another town/state where their law reputations aren't ruined and screw over a whole new set of unwitting customers.

You want to argue the free market, you can damn well accept the principles of the free market, which state you get what you pay for, and if you pay more you are apt to get better goods and services. And this includes the bedrock of society that is the law.

While there will be those who fail and most businesses do. There will be some that succeed. Those people that needed legal representation still lost something prior to the deregulation. Some people got their property back. They turn around get the successful ones that did the best to get their money back from both the con-artists that harmed them.

You can deregulate while still leaving certification in place.

LifeCharacter:

Agitated Owl:

Seanchaidh:

Really? Have you measured? How much does this make a difference? How does it compare to a targeted marketing

Last charity function I went to, I watched a room full of businessmen raise a quarter-million dollars in straight-forward donations toward medical research in 20 minutes. That doesn't count auction proceeds, etc. They do that every year.

I think Seanchaidh is looking for proof that giving charity rewards the businessmen for their contributions. Obviously good-will will increase your business as people would rather give their money to the nice company then the douche company, but how much does it increase and does this increase offset the cost of the charity? Not to mention that the good-will created has to create more profits than, as mentioned, a marketing campaign that costs the same amount.

Seanchaidh:
I'm not sure you're following the conversation...

I believe I understand the point you are trying to make. You (Seanchaidh) are arguing that the free market does not reward philanthropy. A counter-argument has been made that, in fact, it does - through public relations benefits. You requested proof that rational businessmen make significant donations. I cannot provide an academic research study on the matter, but I am offering anecdotal proof that perfectly rational (and successful) individuals do make significant contributions to charities.

Motivations and comparisons between donations and marketing campaigns may be germane to a philosophical argument about the moral underpinnings of the free market system, but I was making a more practical point. While some bastards may laugh all the way to the bank, many corporations and private citizens contribute billions of dollars every year to charitable organizations. The insinuation that most fall into the "bastards" category is unfair and inaccurate.

The above response to aelreth suggests that, even if the free market does include a reward for philanthropy, is it insufficient to overcome the reward for more direct means of profit-maximization, such as targeted marketing campaigns. Therefore, the free market does not reward philanthropic behavior. This is a fine abstract argument when limited to a theoretical free market system, but no country has a pure free-market system and no economic system exists outside societal influences. The amount of money donated by corporations and individuals in the United States suggests that US society as a whole encourages charitable giving on a significant scale (I didn't compare figures for other countries with similar socio-economic structures, so I can't speak toward philanthropic efforts in other countries).

Of course, none of this addresses whether the amount of charitable contributions can satisfy the need, but this is a completely separate issue. In other words, the nature of the free market system is not the issue here; the issue is how much mandatory wealth redistribution is required in a just society.

LifeCharacter:
And, a little off topic, but a quarter million dollars, plus whatever the extra is once a year isn't that much in the grand scheme of things.

One event, one evening, one charity devoted to a specific medical condition. It was an example, and I challenge the idea that a quarter-million dollars of funding toward any particular charity is insignificant - especially when you are looking at a single event out of an entire year.

Strazdas:
You are aware of the practice of tax evasion via charity, where they would actually get more tax breaks due to % going lower based on aboslute amounts of charity, if the earnings are high enough. very likely they did that to actually scam their government out of the taxes.

You are aware that your allegation in biased and insulting. You are also aware that the charitable tax deduction exists to encourage people to give money directly to charitable organizations, since these donations are arguably more efficient methods of promoting the general welfare than giving money to the government through taxes.

I am certain there are individuals who specifically use these deductions to manipulate their income tax bracket. However, in doing so, they are contributing to the general welfare unless they are donating to a fraudulent organization, which is illegal and beside the point.

Skeleon:
So why in the name of fuck are some of you parading around your humble beginnings and the improvements you managed to scrape from that as something positive? Oh, yes, it honours you and speaks to your dedication and whatnot, but guess what? With that same amount of work and a different starting place, you could've been rich by now. Why would you accept all the work you put in being rewarded as it was as just?

Or I might have just sat on my ass and done nothing with my life. What impious would I have to become a rifle shooter if I did not need to kill pigs to keep my family from starving? What would have convinced me to give up so much time and effort for my extracurricular work when I could have just bought my way into college?

Why would you celebrate a system that exploits you and others like you?

Why do you? Every time we talk you sing the praises of those who exploit me every single day. My employers on the other hand, I have a voluntary contract with them. My government on the other hand, if I do not agree with them then they shoot me.

Remus:
I'll just throw this out there - Population Density Map of the United States
image
Do you see that pink and white area in the center? That's where I live, in those places where the nearest available job may be anywhere from 30 to 70 miles away.

Strange. I also live in the middle of one of those white areas. Feel free to come down here. Rent is cheap and there are plenty of jobs. You just have to be willing to do ranch and farm work.

Strazdas:
Let's not pretend like America reinvented the wheel. You took the same roman economic and social institution and implemented them in your country. The result is obviuosly different due to severely different political, resource and cultural changes that happened over 400 years.

The way the US reinterpreted the laws and rebuilt the institutions meant that they started over. The US has had 400 years at best to build from effectively nothing while Europeans had 2,000 years to build up.

One of the things that people always forget is the importance of national memory. The lack of it leads to rebellion (as we see all over the world). Dante when he was writing the Inferno put Brutus and Cassius in the 9th Circle of Hell for "betraying their master" (Julius Caesar). Their crime of betrayal to their master and country earned them the punishment of being chewed by Satan's mouths for all eternity. So even in the days before Italian unification the memory of Rome spurred Italians to seek reunification. What did the US have in that regard? About as much as the Syrians do today.

France has older bridges. you have resources france cant even dream off.

Ok, then by your logic the Democratic Republic of the Congo should be in a better position than its colonizer Belgium. After all, the DRC is one of the most mineral rich countries on earth. Right up there with Russia, Brazil, and Iran. You have fallen into the very western trap of thinking that money is the solution for everything. If we go just by mineral resources Europe NEVER should have been the dominate continent on earth. Europe is a very mineral poor continent (with the exception of Russia and the North Sea with modern discoveries). Hell, in comparison to most continents Europe does not even have much in the way of arable land. Africa is rich in natural resources. Even within Africa, when decolonization was happening one country stood out as a place that everyone thought would make it. This country was rich in natural resources, it had relatively advanced infrastructure, and it was fairly politically stable. That country was Sierra Leone. How did that turn out (on second thought I will not post those images, look up at your own risk)

Agitated Owl:
. You requested proof that rational businessmen make significant donations

No. I requested a measurement or an analysis of the benefit of making those donations.

Seanchaidh:

Agitated Owl:
. You requested proof that rational businessmen make significant donations

No. I requested a measurement or an analysis of the benefit of making those donations.

To what purpose? Proving that a free-market system doesn't encourage the wealthy to make donations? Your point is obviously correct in the abstract - you don't need a statistical analysis to prove it. However, in practice, private groups and individuals donate quite a lot to charity every year, which suggests that the economic system as it is applied within society does encourage charitable donations. At the very least, it does not preclude or overly discourage them. Whether they are adequate in meeting the needs of society is a separate matter revolving around your definition of "needs."

To bring it back to lawyers, the discussion seems to be overlooking the fact that pro-bono representation is not the only option made available for people with little money. In the American legal system at least, any criminal defendant who faces the possibility of incarceration is entitled to a lawyer paid for by the state. In civil matters, there are numerous legal aid organizations that offer services to deserving clients that could not otherwise afford an attorney. Pro bono attorneys most certainly do not provide the bulk of legal representation for lower-income people, but that does not mean those people cannot find representation. This does not require the wholesale restructuring of an economic system or massive wealth redistribution.

Gorfias:

I claim it was no benefit to my own son for a number of years during which he, individually, would have been better off engaged in something less like slavery, something that actually paid him a market rate. He could always go back to school later. I've had the argument about this sort of thing in the past with Agema. We ultimately really couldn't agree on it (leave school, go back later vs. keep them in school.)

What is with quotes today, it seems that everyone quoted me tonight with broken tags. oh well.
So you base your claim agasint effects of school system that has been proven to actually work and befnefit society based on a single case that is your son?
I can see why Agema didnt agree with you.

I have to disagree. My current work is utilized by and benefits thousands of people. No one would read a Batman comic book I drew without a gun to their head. Unfortunate.

As you claim, you had to work hard to get the skill required to do the work that you do now. Would it not then be fair to say that had same effort been applied to your drawing skills, the drawings would be fairly decent? I mean i guess you have at least basic talent there if your attracted to it. i couldnt draw a cat that looked like a car in 4th grade but then i never ever wished i could.
I do not know what you work so i cannot diss your work and its benefits, however i think you measure benefits in purely monetary terms, when that is not einough to have a heathy society (and its kinda the whole point you keep missing - money isnt everything).

aelreth:

Poor people wouldn't require taking the resource of a legal representative with an extremely diverse knowledge in different fields. Instead they could use lawyers with a narrower knowledge field. These would be easier to train because of a smaller amount of information they need to learn to be qualified.

Required skill sets can be mandated not in code of law but with industry standards.

IF only in real life law was so easy that you could have a narrow qualification specialized lawyers.....

In all markets when prices rise, there is enough interest to attract people into providing supply. This pushes prices down.

If prices rise and deman remains the same, increased supply will leave equalibrium of prices that are above the original ones. In laments terms - it would still get more expensive.

aelreth:
A lawyer can market himself by doing pro-bono work only to turn around and charge people that can afford it quite a sum. This benefits both the poor that had their work done for free, the lawyer who gets name recognition and a person that can afford it a legal representative with experience. More importantly they don't have to advertise as much.

Which is basically what every pro-bono lawyer currently out there is doing - making themselves a name so they could charge more later. Personally id trust such lawyer better than one charging little constantly, as they tend to really really want to win thier cases because that will mean thier career, while the other kind cares mroe about cashing his check than winning.

Agitated Owl:

You are aware that your allegation in biased and insulting. You are also aware that the charitable tax deduction exists to encourage people to give money directly to charitable organizations, since these donations are arguably more efficient methods of promoting the general welfare than giving money to the government through taxes.

I am certain there are individuals who specifically use these deductions to manipulate their income tax bracket. However, in doing so, they are contributing to the general welfare unless they are donating to a fraudulent organization, which is illegal and beside the point.

Hmm, i didnt knew reality is biased. Yes, tax deductions are there to encourage people to donate to charitable organizations. they are supposed to work in such a way that person gives more than he gains back, however he actually looses less due to getting some money back. This however stops working at very high wages and works in a way that makes the person get back more than he donated.
I do not dispute that they are, indeed, contributing to the wellfare they are donating to. I dispute the claim that they do it out of the goodness of thier hearts though. As far as Fraudilent donations goes, those germans "donating" to Uwe Boll films come to mind....

farson135:

The way the US reinterpreted the laws and rebuilt the institutions meant that they started over. The US has had 400 years at best to build from effectively nothing while Europeans had 2,000 years to build up.

One of the things that people always forget is the importance of national memory. The lack of it leads to rebellion (as we see all over the world). Dante when he was writing the Inferno put Brutus and Cassius in the 9th Circle of Hell for "betraying their master" (Julius Caesar). Their crime of betrayal to their master and country earned them the punishment of being chewed by Satan's mouths for all eternity. So even in the days before Italian unification the memory of Rome spurred Italians to seek reunification. What did the US have in that regard? About as much as the Syrians do today.

So then you did reinvent the wheel. I am not sure where the national memory really comes much into play of wanting to revolt other than supporting the idea that, for example, slaves didnt revolt because its always been that way. If anything, such clams of revolution is harmful and leads to stagnation.

Ok, then by your logic the Democratic Republic of the Congo should be in a better position than its colonizer Belgium. After all, the DRC is one of the most mineral rich countries on earth. Right up there with Russia, Brazil, and Iran. You have fallen into the very western trap of thinking that money is the solution for everything. If we go just by mineral resources Europe NEVER should have been the dominate continent on earth. Europe is a very mineral poor continent (with the exception of Russia and the North Sea with modern discoveries). Hell, in comparison to most continents Europe does not even have much in the way of arable land. Africa is rich in natural resources. Even within Africa, when decolonization was happening one country stood out as a place that everyone thought would make it. This country was rich in natural resources, it had relatively advanced infrastructure, and it was fairly politically stable. That country was Sierra Leone. How did that turn out (on second thought I will not post those images, look up at your own risk)

Congo is in better position. However what it lacks is smart leadership and smart citizens (smart in a way that they want thier country to be better instead of gget rich and bail schemes). You know, Egypt has the oldest infrastructure known, so by your logic it should be the capital of the world. Its not though.
its not something you build over centuries that matters. its what you do right here right now. Then again, iguess some parts of culture does indeed can be harmful, like the deep roots of gun culture in US.

Strazdas:

So you base your claim agasint effects of school system that has been proven to actually work and befnefit society based on a single case that is your son?

I base my claim that school was more like slavery for my son, individually, because it did not benefit him, individually yet he was forced to go and do school work there without pay. Are you writing, "his tough luck: exploiting him benefits society so he best just suck it up?"

had same effort been applied to your drawing skills, the drawings would be fairly decent?

Not nearly decent enough. At a minimum, maybe passable. Maybe. People need talent which, I don't think I really have. But I can name about a dozen really great artists that matter to me over the last 50 years. With enough supports, I'd think we'd have tens of thousands of people trying to be artists while ditch digging jobs go wanting. I think it would lead to social collapse.

Gorfias:

Strazdas:

So you base your claim agasint effects of school system that has been proven to actually work and befnefit society based on a single case that is your son?

I base my claim that school was more like slavery for my son, individually, because it did not benefit him, individually yet he was forced to go and do school work there without pay. Are you writing, "his tough luck: exploiting him benefits society so he best just suck it up?"

had same effort been applied to your drawing skills, the drawings would be fairly decent?

Not nearly decent enough. At a minimum, maybe passable. Maybe. People need talent which, I don't think I really have. But I can name about a dozen really great artists that matter to me over the last 50 years. With enough supports, I'd think we'd have tens of thousands of people trying to be artists while ditch digging jobs go wanting. I think it would lead to social collapse.

If he was unable to better himself by going to school while everyone else was, then the fault lies with him and society is not responsible to change whole system because one person was unable to work in it. There is always somone who does not reach the ultimate goal, because we are humans and not machines. the goal is to make as little of these people as possible. Forced education improves that.
Im sorry that your sun has managed to gain nothing in school, but one bad example does not mean the system is bad.

Ah, well, i should have known you will think that people are born with talent and need no learning to do thingsl ike drawing, after all school is slavery for you and you think some poeple arent worth living.
It would lead to social change but not collapse by far. In fact, we are at the point where we CAN change such jobs as ditch digging to robots and in fact go do something else.
There is a saying, Work makes horse better, man worse. You do not have to work. in fact, with efficienty as we have right now if there would be no money sinks like those who build castles just because they had a whim a society with 15% unemployement could easily survive. Meanwhile, the culture would flourish.

Strazdas:

Agitated Owl:

You are aware that your allegation in biased and insulting. You are also aware that the charitable tax deduction exists to encourage people to give money directly to charitable organizations, since these donations are arguably more efficient methods of promoting the general welfare than giving money to the government through taxes.

I am certain there are individuals who specifically use these deductions to manipulate their income tax bracket. However, in doing so, they are contributing to the general welfare unless they are donating to a fraudulent organization, which is illegal and beside the point.

Hmm, i didnt knew reality is biased. Yes, tax deductions are there to encourage people to donate to charitable organizations. they are supposed to work in such a way that person gives more than he gains back, however he actually looses less due to getting some money back. This however stops working at very high wages and works in a way that makes the person get back more than he donated.
I do not dispute that they are, indeed, contributing to the wellfare they are donating to. I dispute the claim that they do it out of the goodness of thier hearts though. As far as Fraudilent donations goes, those germans "donating" to Uwe Boll films come to mind....

There are people - usually the very wealthy - who are in a position to abuse loopholes in the tax law to manipulate their income tax unfairly using charitable donations.

Your allegations are biased because you use this general statement to support accusations against specific people. Regarding my example, you claimed they gave money to charity for the particular purpose of abusing loopholes in the income tax law to unfairly lower their taxes. However, you do not know these people, and you do not know how much money they earn individually. You have nothing to base your specific allegations on except the general statement above. That is bias. In your quote above, you extend this accusation to everyone who is very wealthy, without any particularity or further support. That is also bias.

Furthermore, your attitude is no different than the attitude sometimes found in the opposing political camp; to wit, some people abuse welfare for unjust personal gain, therefore everyone on welfare is a moocher. Make accusations where they are warranted and argue for reasonable ways to limit actual abuses, but please don't slander entire demographics.

generals3:

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)

I'm not doing it anymore but i was cutting down full sheets of different types of plastic to customer orders. 200-300 sheets per day at a cost of 30-1000 per sheet. Obviously some days were over my estimate and others were below depending on what a customer wanted but on the order sheets i worked from i could see the cost per sheet to our company (represented as a serial code that customers wouldn't understand) and the cost the customer paid as a balance of the transaction at the bottom.

There were 6 members of staff who roughly produced around 10,000 per day each (3 cutters at 100% mark-up, and 3 warehouse staff working at 50% mark-up but moving around twice the volume of the cutters aswell as dealing with deliveries and stock movements within the warehouse. Our yearly profit was somewhere around 23 million (pre-banking collapse i hasten to add).

We also had 3 drivers and 6 office staff who i haven't mentioned in the totals because i can't quantify their contribution in the same way that i can my own. Even if i add them in and divide the cost equally it works out at around 6000 per head per day.

aelreth:

While there will be those who fail and most businesses do. There will be some that succeed. Those people that needed legal representation still lost something prior to the deregulation. Some people got their property back. They turn around get the successful ones that did the best to get their money back from both the con-artists that harmed them.

You can deregulate while still leaving certification in place.

Certification is a form of regulation.

The government can regulate. Or there can be internal self-regulation by the profession. But there is no guarantee that the self-regulation will be less rigorous than the government (and it may be the opposite, because they know profession restrictions equals scarcity equals higher salaries). But even self-regulation must be backed up by state law (i.e. government) - a bar association can only refuse a lawyer to practice if the government will ratify it doing so. Otherwise, the self-regulation is merely a non-enforceable "stamp of approval", and anyone can practice law without that stamp anyway. Whatever way you look at it and whoever regulates, dropping the standards of practice makes it easier for charlatans and incompetents to work.

Now, imagine you get a charlatan, and he loses your case. How do you even know his incompetence lost you the case? You're not a lawyer. Straight off, a large proportion of people will simply never realise their case was mishandled and suffer injustice.

In order to prevent this or if you think injustice has happened, you need to hire a second lawyer to check up on the fist. That's gross inefficiency, in money as well as time. In a criminal case, you might suffer years in prison before the error is rectified. You might also end up with a second incompetent lawyer. Then you have to sue your original lawyer. Does he have the assets to cover your losses? If not, you've got injustice anyway. This could be dealt with by insurance, but incompetence will create high premiums. High premiums create a barrier to lawyer employment (scarcity) or forcing lawyers to charge much more to compensate anyway.

And as stated before, salaries cannot drop that far because someone talented enough to make a good lawyer is not going to accept minimal salary in law when he could earn twice as much as an accountant, manager, chartered surveyor or whatever else.

So whichever way you roll this out, twist it around, and create hypotheticals, poor people tend to get bad lawyers and/or injustice, and good lawyers remain expensive.

Your only real anti-regulation, small government solution is pro bono work. But this is based (as said before) in hoping that people - whether lawyers themselves or their rich customers pressuring them - are nice, charitable people. And I reiterate, that is simply not an adequate basis for an institutional system.

The free market has no good answer to this.

Super Not Cosmo:

Sleekit:
cell phones and the internet are actually socially and governmentally de facto required "necessities" in much of the world now Cosmo.

in the UK for example internet access is required to claim the new Universal Credit that will shortly replace vast swathes of the current benefits system while a mobile number is a defacto requirement for those seeking work and claiming JSA while doing so. it short the government treats both as "necessities" even for people not in work.

While I can't speak for the rest of the world in the US you can get by just fine without a cell phone. As for the internet, that's freely available at most every public library.

That is assuming that you have a landline telephone.
You can NOT survive or live in the US without a phone. Period.
Work places require a phone number in order to get in touch with their employees.
The government requires a phone number. Banks require phone numbers for you to have an account with them.

Landline telephones cost upwards of $90 a month here, where I live. And that's for just the telephone service. Basic telephone service. Its cheaper to have a cell phone.

Phones are a necessity.
Don't,t believe me, try getting a job without a phone number.

Super Not Cosmo:

xDarc:
I'm 31, I make 20 bucks an hour. When I started working at 14 years old in 1996, I made 4.25 an hour. If people want to make more money, they should pay their dues like everyone else and go out and learn marketable job skills.

Otherwise the moment that a McDonald's worker gets $15 bucks an hour, I quit and get a job flipping burgers like everyone else- so I don't have to put up with the shit at my current job anymore. I could survive on $10 an hour, I planned my whole life around losing my current job at any moment. This is the new normal.

The problem is there's no economic opportunity; it's survival of the smartest out there right now, and globalism is to blame.

Amen to this! I too have paid my dues working for peanuts. I even did so for a while during my adult life. The first handful of my adult years were financially stupid with no shortage of zeroes on the end. Eventually though I took some initiative and went and applied to deal blackjack at a casino that was opening locally and I'm now making a comfortable living as a manager at that casino despite drunkenly failing out of college and sobering up in a dead end job at Blockbuster Video.

Despite what people seem to think there is no participation reward for working a shitty job. If you want to better yourself it's up to you to improve your lot in life. Nobody is going to come and bail you out just because. The sooner people realize this the better off they tend to be. I realized it in my mid twenties. My wife realized it in high school and she now has a degree and a job where she makes really good money for showing up and simply being present most days. My sister-in-law is in her mid twenties and still hasn't realized it. She works as a waitress at a pizza place and just hit us up for money to avoid being homeless.

Captcha: Start saving today . . . . . Sound financial advice Captcha, sound advice indeed.

If only things worked out that way for everyone.
I,m 35, educated (finishing up a second degree ATM), army veteran, 12 years of middle and upper management experience along side of 7 years in catering. Unemployed because no one wants to even bother trying to give me a shot at doing anything at their places.

As for your smoking rant in an earlier post. You can easily get 4 cartons worth of cigarettes here where I live for 20 bucks. Some assembly required.

Agitated Owl:

There are people - usually the very wealthy - who are in a position to abuse loopholes in the tax law to manipulate their income tax unfairly using charitable donations.

Your allegations are biased because you use this general statement to support accusations against specific people. Regarding my example, you claimed they gave money to charity for the particular purpose of abusing loopholes in the income tax law to unfairly lower their taxes. However, you do not know these people, and you do not know how much money they earn individually. You have nothing to base your specific allegations on except the general statement above. That is bias. In your quote above, you extend this accusation to everyone who is very wealthy, without any particularity or further support. That is also bias.

Furthermore, your attitude is no different than the attitude sometimes found in the opposing political camp; to wit, some people abuse welfare for unjust personal gain, therefore everyone on welfare is a moocher. Make accusations where they are warranted and argue for reasonable ways to limit actual abuses, but please don't slander entire demographics.

No. I put your allegation that businessmen do charity out of goodness of their heart to dispute by showing your a commonpractice way charity is used for personal gain among rich people. I doublt you would argue that people who can throw a quarter of a million to charity in one evening is rich.
I do not know these people, neither do you. However legal practice shows that charity is often abused in the way i described it, and arent always actually charitable.
Some peopel do abuse welfare for unjust gain, however statistics show that such people are few and far between ( i belive Uk statistics are around 3%) while majrity of welfare claimers are indeed deserving to get one (deserving according to current regulation laws).

CannibalCorpses:

I'm not doing it anymore but i was cutting down full sheets of different types of plastic to customer orders. 200-300 sheets per day at a cost of 30-1000 per sheet. Obviously some days were over my estimate and others were below depending on what a customer wanted but on the order sheets i worked from i could see the cost per sheet to our company (represented as a serial code that customers wouldn't understand) and the cost the customer paid as a balance of the transaction at the bottom.

There were 6 members of staff who roughly produced around 10,000 per day each (3 cutters at 100% mark-up, and 3 warehouse staff working at 50% mark-up but moving around twice the volume of the cutters aswell as dealing with deliveries and stock movements within the warehouse. Our yearly profit was somewhere around 23 million (pre-banking collapse i hasten to add).

We also had 3 drivers and 6 office staff who i haven't mentioned in the totals because i can't quantify their contribution in the same way that i can my own. Even if i add them in and divide the cost equally it works out at around 6000 per head per day.

Lets say for simplicity you sell sheets worth of 20.000 per day, and the sheets themselves, with all logistic means cost 10.000, that leaves a 10.000 markup. Now take away from that any costs of equipment you use for cutting them, because they do not appear out of thin air, also unless all your clients just happen t stumble upon you and buy the sheets, you have to account how much value to the sale was made by people who attracted the costumers. then you have to take away the imput of the drivers as well. Now as you state it is very hard to count the alue they have added, and this creates a loophole for the owners to claim you dont make much to begin with. since we dont know specifics, i will not guess. but it is fair to say that this 10.000 certainly goes down more than twice when we factor in all things. you have to not forget even such things as housing. after all you do need a building to cut them in so it is essential in making the value.

Now i dont know the size of a company or capital ratio, so the yearly profit does not say much, but comparing to general construction companies (something i am in process of writing my masters paper on, thus i know thier data by heart) 23 million is quite small.

Strazdas:
So then you did reinvent the wheel.

Nope. The US just rebuilt from scratch. Just because you are making bread from scratch does not mean you have to reinvent the recipe. You may adjust it, depending on you materials, but that does not mean you reinvent it.

I am not sure where the national memory really comes much into play of wanting to revolt

As I pointed out, what holds a people together? In our modern world it is national memory (in general). In the old days it was a variety of things depending on where you are.

other than supporting the idea that, for example, slaves didnt revolt because its always been that way.

Slaves did revolt. Many times in fact.

Congo is in better position. However what it lacks is smart leadership and smart citizens (smart in a way that they want thier country to be better instead of gget rich and bail schemes).

So you accept the fact that there is more to a country's wellness than money. Good. Now you need to expend your ideas and accept the basic fact that a country that has time to pull itself together is usually better off than a country that has just started.

You know, Egypt has the oldest infrastructure known, so by your logic it should be the capital of the world. Its not though.

If you honestly think that infrastructure is only thing I mentioned (and not just an example) then you need to go back and read what I actually wrote.

However, Egypt is a great example of a country with a strong national memory and a distinct tie to the land. That is why Egypt is one of the most stable countries in the Middle East. Its unstable aspects can be linked in large part effects of colonialism that all colonized states suffer from.

its not something you build over centuries that matters. its what you do right here right now.

Let us see, the bridges that the US built under FDR, Truman, Ike, and others are all falling apart due to shoddy workmanship and poor materials. That means we have to pay an insane amount of money to replace and fix them. Right now our infrastructure is going to shit because of shoddy workmanship and an unwillingness by the Feds to do their damn job (and not just recently). So, France had infrastructure to build upon. We built rapidly from scratch. We see the results. France does not have our problems with infrastructure degradation because they were able to build slowly and carefully (more or less).

Then again, iguess some parts of culture does indeed can be harmful, like the deep roots of gun culture in US.

So you support the death of endangered species? American hunters are the only reason this animal (below) has not gone extinct in the world (it is now extinct in its own country but it is thriving here in Texas)-

10,000 of those guys live in the state of Texas alone. Less than 150 live in a protected range in their home country.

Then again, as a Lithuanian, what business do you have talking about the destructive effects of my culture? Your country has a higher murder rate than the US and one of the highest suicide rates on earth. And guess what, your country is in the bottom 20 of all countries by gun ownership rate.

Strazdas:

Agitated Owl:

There are people - usually the very wealthy - who are in a position to abuse loopholes in the tax law to manipulate their income tax unfairly using charitable donations.

Your allegations are biased because you use this general statement to support accusations against specific people. Regarding my example, you claimed they gave money to charity for the particular purpose of abusing loopholes in the income tax law to unfairly lower their taxes. However, you do not know these people, and you do not know how much money they earn individually. You have nothing to base your specific allegations on except the general statement above. That is bias. In your quote above, you extend this accusation to everyone who is very wealthy, without any particularity or further support. That is also bias.

Furthermore, your attitude is no different than the attitude sometimes found in the opposing political camp; to wit, some people abuse welfare for unjust personal gain, therefore everyone on welfare is a moocher. Make accusations where they are warranted and argue for reasonable ways to limit actual abuses, but please don't slander entire demographics.

No. I put your allegation that businessmen do charity out of goodness of their heart to dispute by showing your a commonpractice way charity is used for personal gain among rich people. I doublt you would argue that people who can throw a quarter of a million to charity in one evening is rich.
I do not know these people, neither do you. However legal practice shows that charity is often abused in the way i described it, and arent always actually charitable.
Some peopel do abuse welfare for unjust gain, however statistics show that such people are few and far between ( i belive Uk statistics are around 3%) while majrity of welfare claimers are indeed deserving to get one (deserving according to current regulation laws).

Actually, I do know those people; at least the ones in my example. I thought that was fairly obvious, considering it was a personal anecdote.

Regardless, what you are saying is that generalized condemnations without specific evidence are perfectly acceptable when applied to the wealthy, but unacceptable when applied to the poor. Even assuming that charity is "often" abused in this way, that does not prove that a specific wealthy person or group gives money to charity in a calculated attempt to cheat the tax system, rather than out of a sense of generosity. You are stereotyping.

Agitated Owl:

Seanchaidh:

Agitated Owl:
. You requested proof that rational businessmen make significant donations

No. I requested a measurement or an analysis of the benefit of making those donations.

To what purpose?

To question this point: "Actually it does reward that behavior, other individuals like doing business with people of good will. It's in their rational self interest to do so" (to provide legal services for free or at reduced cost to the poor).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/04/harkin-miller-minimum-wage-increase/1962725/

$10.10. This I would not mind having, with annual adjustment for inflation, although I do not see this even being put to the floor in the House.

Vylox:
If only things worked out that way for everyone.
I,m 35, educated (finishing up a second degree ATM), army veteran, 12 years of middle and upper management experience along side of 7 years in catering. Unemployed because no one wants to even bother trying to give me a shot at doing anything at their places.

As for your smoking rant in an earlier post. You can easily get 4 cartons worth of cigarettes here where I live for 20 bucks. Some assembly required.

Well that's unfortunate. I mean that sincerely. Have you thought about moving to North Dakota? Honest question. If you are having a hard go of it where you are at and are at all capable of relocating I can't urge you strongly enough to check out the work in the oil fields in North Dakota. They can't hire people fast enough. It's not just oil jobs either, it's all sorts of jobs. Walmart is hiring people in at over 15 per hour because there is such a high demand for workers there.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked