For CdM: Bullshit jobs

[Maximus]

Not a bad analogy, but it misses the part of their job that deals with

1) Protecting the business from lawsuits from consumers (although the consumer lawyers are, I suppose, akin to mercenaries as well, but there is an element of simply making sure the business is aware of and dealing with prtecting themselves from perfectly valid lawsuits as well).
2) Protecting the business from regulatory dangers, and
3) Taxes.

Given that an absurdly disproportionate number of legislators in this country are lawyers I think my point stands.

[DGuller]

So you guys moonlight as business consultants?

There is no moonlighting about it.  You guys just have a very very narrow view of what lawyers actually do.  There are a number of strategic and pracitical decisions that need to be made regarding how best to run a business that directly engage legal judgment.  It used to be that the GCs were not part of the executive of a company.  Now it is difficult to find one that is not.

This has given rise to a number of issues regarding solicitor client priviledge and the degree to which it might be eroded by counsel acting as a decision maker.

I'm still leaning towards Berkut's interpretations of what you guys do.

[crazy canuck]

So you guys moonlight as business consultants?

There is no moonlighting about it.  You guys just have a very very narrow view of what lawyers actually do.  There are a number of strategic and pracitical decisions that need to be made regarding how best to run a business that directly engage legal judgment.  It used to be that the GCs were not part of the executive of a company.  Now it is difficult to find one that is not.

This has given rise to a number of issues regarding solicitor client priviledge and the degree to which it might be eroded by counsel acting as a decision maker.

I'm still leaning towards Berkut's interpretations of what you guys do.

Not suprising 

[DGuller]

I'm still leaning towards Berkut's interpretations of what you guys do.

Not suprising 

Of course not, it's a rational conclusion.  The truth is always somewhere in the middle.  So is Berkut.  Taking that into account, it seems obvious which one of you has it right, does it not?

[crazy canuck]

I'm still leaning towards Berkut's interpretations of what you guys do.

Not suprising 

Of course not, it's a rational conclusion.  The truth is always somewhere in the middle.  So is Berkut.  Taking that into account, it seems obvious which one of you has it right, does it not?

Not what I meant.

[CountDeMoney]

The security guard protects the business against risks too. So do the janitors cleaning the floors so customers don't slip and sue the place. And the risk of grossing the customers out with a dirty environment and driving away business. All the non-production jobs are the same that way. My job is too. Lump me in with the lawyers and the security guard.

There are whole businesses that are composed entirely of non-"producing" operations.

Yes, they're called Business Services, Cororporate Services, HQ, CBS, etc.

Unfortunately, in today's prevailing corporate economic model, it is difficult to show a tangible return on investment for non-revenue generating lines of business.  At best we're overhead, at worse we're an expense-. and that cuts into--you got it--shareholder value.

[Malthus]

To counter Berkut, a lawyer isn't really like a security guard at Wal-mart - a lawyer is more like the architect one hires to build the Wal-mart. Does an architect "make anything"? S/he plans out what others will make, taking into account the local building codes, the physical layout of the mall, and the customer's needs. Similarly, a corporate lawyer plans out how a buisness is to operate, down to such minor details as whether the baby sleepware sold in the store mas to be seperately tested in that specific jurisdiction or whether the testing in (say) California would suffice. Plan badly, and very bad things happen. This is not something you want to farm out to some dude in India ...

An architect guards against natural hazards, gravity, earthquakes, weather, decay, etc.

Lawyers guard against hazards created by other lawyers.

They are more akin to medieval mercenaries. They are awful, but if you don't have them and the other guy does, you're fucked.

An interesting point of view. 

Unfortunately, it is totally incorrect. 

[The Minsky Moment]

The entire C-suite of a modern business is a cost center.  They don't produce anything.  They "manage" "strategize," "coordinate," etc.
I think Berkut is correct in his taxonomy.  I am not convinced as to the significance though.

[Malthus]

So you guys moonlight as business consultants?

There is no moonlighting about it.  You guys just have a very very narrow view of what lawyers actually do.  There are a number of strategic and pracitical decisions that need to be made regarding how best to run a business that directly engage legal judgment.  It used to be that the GCs were not part of the executive of a company.  Now it is difficult to find one that is not.

This has given rise to a number of issues regarding solicitor client priviledge and the degree to which it might be eroded by counsel acting as a decision maker.

Yup. But try explaining that to this audience. 

[Malthus]

This entire argument in a nutshell.

Berkut: Lawyers produce nothing of value.
Lawyers: ZOMG YOU SAY ARE JOB IS WORTHLESS! DIAF! WE ARE SO IMPORTANT!
Berklut: That isn't what I meant. I wasn't speaking in a general sense, but in a specific sense of whether you are part of the cost or production parts of the business model.
Lawyers: OUR JOB IS SUPER IMPORTANT WE TOTALLY PRODUCE SUPER IMPORTANT STUFF THE BUSINESS WOULD IMPLODE WITHOUT US! DAMN YOU TO HELLL YOU BSTARD!
Berkut: Yeah, you guys are totally important, lots of people who are not direct producers are important.
LAWYERS: I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU SAID WE DONT PRODUCE ANYTHING! THAT IS SO MEAN! YOU JUST DONT UNDERSTAND US BECAUSE OUR JOBS ARE SO COMPLICATED!
Berkut: Yeah, I get that. I am not saying...
LAWYERS: WE MATTER! WE TOTALLY MATTER A LOT! WE ARE VERY VERY VERY IMPORTANT!
Berkut: Yes, of course you are, you just don't actually produce...
LAWYERS: AHHHHH!!!!! HE IS SAYING IT AGAIN!!!!!! BERKUT IS STOOPID!!!!!

What a well-balanced and totally accurate summary. 

[Barrister]

The entire C-suite of a modern business is a cost center.  They don't produce anything.  They "manage" "strategize," "coordinate," etc.
I think Berkut is correct in his taxonomy.  I am not convinced as to the significance though.

That's about how I summed it up earlier.  Lots of jobs don't produce anything.  Not sure why it matters though, as without those positions the modern business wouldn't be able to produce anything anyways.

[Malthus]

The entire C-suite of a modern business is a cost center.  They don't produce anything.  They "manage" "strategize," "coordinate," etc.
I think Berkut is correct in his taxonomy.  I am not convinced as to the significance though.

That's about how I summed it up earlier.  Lots of jobs don't produce anything.  Not sure why it matters though, as without those positions the modern business wouldn't be able to produce anything anyways.

I've asked Berkut a couple of times why he thinks the distinction is important, without result - other than to be called a sensitive prima donna. 

[Ideologue]

Because when computers run the world, lawyers will be unnecessary, but those who produce the computers will still have jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYu1qW8Dctk

[HVC]

Because when computers run the world, lawyers will be unnecessary, but those who produce the computers will still have jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYu1qW8Dctk

those who produce computers will be other computers. So only make work professions like lawyers will exist. I, for one, welcome our new legal overlords.

[The Minsky Moment]

For most of human history, well over 90 pecent of the population was involved in food production.
Today, in the US, agriculture takes up about 1.5 percent of total employment.  And yet that tiny percentage produces not only enough food to make the US rank consistently among the world leaders in obesity, but to feed tens of millions of others around the world.  A single US farmer produces enough food to feed hundreds of people. 

One could look at a laborer picking fruit or harvesting grain and label that person a "producer".  Clearly they work they do is essential.  But equally essential is the worker in the railroad switchyard, who helps route freight cars so that the grain can get to the person who eats it.  Or the person who processes the paychecks of the workers on the assembly line who put together the combine harvester.  For a single piece of bread to reach a person who eats it, literally thousands of people are involved.  Most of them "produce" nothing tangible, but many are essential for anything to be produced.

The extraordinary feats of production and distribution that characterize modern developed economies are possible only because a vast infrastructure supports those activities.  Some of that infrastructure is very visible - roads and rail lines, container ships and trailer trucks, airports and seaports.  These facilities not only have to be built, they must be planned and maintained and repaired, and millions must work operating the instrumentalities of distribution that make use of these assets.

But just as important is the invisible infrastructure.  21st century economies would not be able to function without the ability to process and excute billions upon billions of transactions daily, some of which may involve the exchange of incredibly valuable assets or commodities, and most of which involve people who are essentially strangers to one another.  It is difficult to over-emphasize how exceptional this is.  For most of human history, the vast majority of trade and commerce was carried out between people who knew one another - that is the original sense of the word "credit".  Closer to the opposite is true now.  This state of affair is possible because of a financial and social infrastructure of equal significance to the physical infrastructure.  The financial infrastructure consists of complex credit and monetary systems that allow incredibly rapid, reliable, and flexible exchange.  The social infrastructure comprises a complex web of rules and norms that when properly administered, effectively recedes into the background and allows commodities to be moved, transfered and consumed efficiently and with a minimum of conflict or uncertainty.  Here is where lawyers typically get involved.  From the outside, the focus naturally goes to the abormal instances of contention.  What is easily missed is the fact the trillions of dollars of value are exchanged daily throughout the world with any conflict, claim or lawsuit ever arising.  That does not happen naturally on its own.  It takes enormous effort involving millions of people (of which lawyers are only a subset).

The key question is not who produces and who is parasitical - in that sense the OP goes badly awry.

The key question is how to divide up the net value of the economy among the many essential people who play a role in causing production to happen.  The common answer - "the market" -- in fact is not an answer at all.  It is a metaphor masquerading as an answer.  The more correct answer is that the distribution of economic power is the result of a mapping of endowments and actions on an incredibly complex set of formal and informal rules and norms, the determination of which is beyond the power of anyone to fully and accurately describe.

Where the OP may have a point is in the sense that those persons who play key roles in supplying the financial infrastructure -- mainly bankers of various kinds and their agents (yes - including the corporate lawyers as a group) -- have somehow managed to arrogate to themselves a greater piece of the economic pie than either is warranted by their economic contribution, or is prudent and consistent with economic and social stability over the long run.  I happen to sympathesize with this view.  There have been times where the social and economic power of finance has been less than it is today (say the 1950s) and other times when it has been similar (the Gilded Age).  I personally think the latter is cautionary tale that should concern us.  This is not an argument that can be proven quantitatively or in accordance with pure logic.  It is a matter of moral and practical judgment.  And I am not sure exactly what to do about it.  But I do know that talking about producers vs. non-producers as an important distinction is not really helpul.