For CdM: Bullshit jobs

[The Brain]

Lawyers are a cost center, and produce literally nothing of value

Yeah, because nobody needs properly drafted agreements.  I mean, what could possibly go wrong?  You are completely discounting the role commercial lawyers play in drafting agreements that have commercially advantageous language and perhaps more importantly the due diligence work that is required in most, if not all, commercial transactions. 

You don't understand what he is saying.

They may very well be very necessary and important, while at the exact same time producing exactly nothing of value.

They are like a security guardat Wal-mart, at best. A necessary evil, but still just a cost that adds nothing to the bottom line. Ideally, you would not need them at all, and would be better off if your business model could simply get rid of them altogether while avoiding the negative effects of doing so.

No, you dont understand what I am saying and for that I apologize.

If you were buying a business presumably you would want to know what it is you are actually buying.  You would also probably want whatever agreement you are making to be enforceable and to ensure that all the important issues are dealt with.  Now you might be some superhuman who knows all this stuff and so, potentially, you might be able to do all of this without assistance.  But as a practical matter there is no way for a the "business plan" to work without having the assistance of someone who could help you with all these matters.

Fingers strike keyboards, but are these people actually communicating?

[Caliga]

Lawyers are a cost center, and produce literally nothing of value

Yeah, because nobody needs properly drafted agreements.  I mean, what could possibly go wrong?  You are completely discounting the role commercial lawyers play in drafting agreements that have commercially advantageous language and perhaps more importantly the due diligence work that is required in most, if not all, commercial transactions.

That's the point I was going to get to but didn't have time earlier.  To give you a tangible example of how lawyers can be beneficial, my company won a lawsuit a few years ago wherein we received a settlement of over $100 million.  I believe our corporate lawyers had more than a little to do with that.

[garbon]

Lawyers are a cost center, and produce literally nothing of value

Yeah, because nobody needs properly drafted agreements.  I mean, what could possibly go wrong?  You are completely discounting the role commercial lawyers play in drafting agreements that have commercially advantageous language and perhaps more importantly the due diligence work that is required in most, if not all, commercial transactions.

That's the point I was going to get to but didn't have time earlier.  To give you a tangible example of how lawyers can be beneficial, my company won a lawsuit a few years ago wherein we received a settlement of over $100 million.  I believe our corporate lawyers had more than a little to do with that.

I don't think taking 100 million from someone means that something of value was produced.

[Berkut]

Lawyers are a cost center, and produce literally nothing of value

Yeah, because nobody needs properly drafted agreements.  I mean, what could possibly go wrong?  You are completely discounting the role commercial lawyers play in drafting agreements that have commercially advantageous language and perhaps more importantly the due diligence work that is required in most, if not all, commercial transactions. 

You don't understand what he is saying.

They may very well be very necessary and important, while at the exact same time producing exactly nothing of value.

They are like a security guardat Wal-mart, at best. A necessary evil, but still just a cost that adds nothing to the bottom line. Ideally, you would not need them at all, and would be better off if your business model could simply get rid of them altogether while avoiding the negative effects of doing so.

No, you dont understand what I am saying and for that I apologize.

If you were buying a business presumably you would want to know what it is you are actually buying.  You would also probably want whatever agreement you are making to be enforceable and to ensure that all the important issues are dealt with.  Now you might be some superhuman who knows all this stuff and so, potentially, you might be able to do all of this without assistance.  But as a practical matter there is no way for a the "business plan" to work without having the assistance of someone who could help you with all these matters.

That is all very true, and yet, it is still the case that that person assisting you with those matters produced exactly nothing of value.

That doesn't mean they aren't necessary and perhaps even critical. Just that they don't actually *produce* anything. It isn't their job to produce things though, it is their job to make sure you don't get fucked.

But there is no question that it would be better for the business to not need said protection to begin with, since that would result in lower costs.

Just like it would be better if Wal-mart could simply trust everyone not to steal anything.

But since they cannot, it is better for them to eat the cost of security guards, since presumably that is lower than the cost of what would get stolen absent said guards. In any case, the security guars are still a cost of doing business, and do not produce anything themselves.

[crazy canuck]

Aren't you describing the rule by lawyers, rather than the rule of law?

Presumably if the body of laws were written well enough that the majority of people could understand the vast majority of them, then we'd need far fewer lawyers.   

Hence the rule of law could be seen, understood and appreciated, rather than the light of justice being filtered through mud.   

A great deal of ink has been spilled over the last 200 years or so regarding the Rule of Law and how certainty in the law can best be achieved so that it is more understandable and predictable.  But as society and the interactions within society (both commercial and private) become more complex it is difficult for me to imagine a body of laws, no matter how well they might be drafted, that do not require a group of specialist to advise people who dont have the time or inclination to learn all of the law themselves.

[Caliga]

 

Is the premise that unless you are physically building something with your hands or operating a machine you aren't producing anything of value?

[Caliga]

nvm, I just got caught up in the thread and understand it now.

[crazy canuck]

Just like it would be better if Wal-mart could simply trust everyone not to steal anything.

No, you are missing the point entirely.  The security guard is there to prevent theft.  The lawyer is there to make the deal better.  In your terminology the lawyer produces real benefit.  As just a small example client x cam to me the other day to vet an agreement they were about to make.  They had completely missed an issue.  I caught it and addressed the issue in the language of the agreement which meant the company obtained more revenue than if the agreement had not addressed the issue.

You are making the same mistake as Ide.  Lawyers are not just watchdogs against potential liabilities.  They also make better agreements...

[viper37]

No nurse is making millions of dollar. While some useless CEOs are.

a million $ a year, yes, there are some.  In the 100 000-900 000$ range, you'll find a few in Quebec.  Of course, they don't get stock options, so after taxes, they lose most.

[The Minsky Moment]

Just that they don't actually *produce* anything.

berkut - what do you mean by produce something?
Defined narrowly, only a very small percentage of workers are producing things.

[viper37]

Just like it would be better if Wal-mart could simply trust everyone not to steal anything.

No, you are missing the point entirely.  The security guard is there to prevent theft.  The lawyer is there to make the deal better.  In your terminology the lawyer produces real benefit.  As just a small example client x cam to me the other day to vet an agreement they were about to make.  They had completely missed an issue.  I caught it and addressed the issue in the language of the agreement which meant the company obtained more revenue than if the agreement had not addressed the issue.

You are making the same mistake as Ide.  Lawyers are not just watchdogs against potential liabilities.  They also make better agreements...

there are a few problems with lawyers, namely that they don't seem to attach any value to the truth.  The objective of a lawyer, and what the law asks of a lawyer is to represent the interest of his client.  End of the line.  Lying is considered a good way to achieve your objective.  Up 'til the moment you reach court, almost anything can be said or done.  The search for truth is not only not a priority, it ain't their business.  Client is always right, especially when he's wrong.

This gets lawyer their bad rep.  That and the ambulance chasing in the US, most likely.

I understand for a criminal lawyer, his job is to get the best defense for his client.  And it's hard to reconcile that with the other objective of the law.  I mean, if the client is guilty and the lawyer needs to do his best job defending him, he can't exactly do something else than his job at the best of his talent.  I can't see how we could get out of this currently, on a general basis.

But on civil case... at least trying to understand the case, trying to find out what is the problem, not taking for granted what the client says as if it were The Truth...  This would avoid frivolous lawsuits and reduce the burden on society.  Justice should be about seeking facts, regardless of who's right or wrong.

[Barrister]

Just like it would be better if Wal-mart could simply trust everyone not to steal anything.

No, you are missing the point entirely.  The security guard is there to prevent theft.  The lawyer is there to make the deal better.  In your terminology the lawyer produces real benefit.  As just a small example client x cam to me the other day to vet an agreement they were about to make.  They had completely missed an issue.  I caught it and addressed the issue in the language of the agreement which meant the company obtained more revenue than if the agreement had not addressed the issue.

You are making the same mistake as Ide.  Lawyers are not just watchdogs against potential liabilities.  They also make better agreements...

there are a few problems with lawyers, namely that they don't seem to attach any value to the truth.  The objective of a lawyer, and what the law asks of a lawyer is to represent the interest of his client.  End of the line.  Lying is considered a good way to achieve your objective.  Up 'til the moment you reach court, almost anything can be said or done.  The search for truth is not only not a priority, it ain't their business.  Client is always right, especially when he's wrong.

This gets lawyer their bad rep.  That and the ambulance chasing in the US, most likely.

I understand for a criminal lawyer, his job is to get the best defense for his client.  And it's hard to reconcile that with the other objective of the law.  I mean, if the client is guilty and the lawyer needs to do his best job defending him, he can't exactly do something else than his job at the best of his talent.  I can't see how we could get out of this currently, on a general basis.

But on civil case... at least trying to understand the case, trying to find out what is the problem, not taking for granted what the client says as if it were The Truth...  This would avoid frivolous lawsuits and reduce the burden on society.  Justice should be about seeking facts, regardless of who's right or wrong.

As a servant of Her Majesty, my sole duty is to The Truth(tm). 

[crazy canuck]

there are a few problems with lawyers, namely that they don't seem to attach any value to the truth.

Really?  Did you read that in a comment to a Globe and Mail article on Lawyers?

[garbon]

there are a few problems with lawyers, namely that they don't seem to attach any value to the truth.

Really?  Did you read that in a comment to a Globe and Mail article on Lawyers?

I think he read it in a novel.

[CountDeMoney]

Had this in my Facebook newsfeed and it made me think of CdM:

Shit, you're not going to get any traction on that with the likes of Yi.

That essay is extraordinary.

Lulz, that was quick. :shareholdervaluecopter: