Languish.org

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

Bullshit jobs: why we're not all working 4h days (http://boingboing.net/2013/08/19/bullshit-jobs-why-were-not.html)

QuoteDavid Graeber, who wrote last year's incredible Debt: The First 5,000 Years, has an extraordinary essay up called "On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs," which explores the phenomenon of people in productive industries (nursing, teaching, etc) being relentlessly ground down on wages, job stability and working conditions; while all the big money aggregates to the finance industry and a layer of "bullshit jobs" like corporate attorneys, administrators, etc -- who do jobs that produce no tangible benefit.

QuoteEven more perverse, there seems to be a broad sense that this is the way things should be. This is one of the secret strengths of right-wing populism. You can see it when tabloids whip up resentment against tube workers for paralysing London during contract disputes: the very fact that tube workers can paralyse London shows that their work is actually necessary, but this seems to be precisely what annoys people. It's even clearer in the US, where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilizing resentment against school teachers, or auto workers (and not, significantly, against the school administrators or auto industry managers who actually cause the problems) for their supposedly bloated wages and benefits. It's as if they are being told "but you get to teach children! Or make cars! You get to have real jobs! And on top of that you have the nerve to also expect middle-class pensions and health care?"

If someone had designed a work regime perfectly suited to maintaining the power of finance capital, it's hard to see how they could have done a better job. Real, productive workers are relentlessly squeezed and exploited. The remainder are divided between a terrorised stratum of the, universally reviled, unemployed and a larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed to make them identify with the perspectives and sensibilities of the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc) – and particularly it's financial avatars – but, at the same time, foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value. Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. But it is the only explanation for why, despite our technological capacities, we are not all working 3-4 hour days.

Full article:

http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

That essay is extraordinary.

Testify, brother, testify.

Quotea terrorised stratum of the, universally reviled, unemployed

Yeah, Money will love this. :D

And don't think I missed the "it's [sic] financial avatars" either.

So much revulsion for the gardeners tending the money plants. :(

corporate attorneys produce no 'tangible benefit'? :hmm:

QuoteYet, after a couple of unsuccessful albums, he'd lost his contract, and plagued with debts and a newborn daughter, ended up, as he put it, "taking the default choice of so many directionless folk: law school." Now he's a corporate lawyer working in a prominent New York firm. He was the first to admit that his job was utterly meaningless, contributed nothing to the world, and, in his own estimation, should not really exist.

There's a lot of questions one could ask here, starting with, what does it say about our society that it seems to generate an extremely limited demand for talented poet-musicians, but an apparently infinite demand for specialists in corporate law?

There's an infinite demand?  That's news.

I suppose I (reluctantly) strongly agree that the economy is badly mismanaged in a way that benefits rent-seekers and harms everyone else--my own job is certainly at best a lot of wasted effort in order to achieve necessary output, at worst a billing scam to steal value from business that actually do things.  And, sure, a lot of jobs are pretty worthless, socially.  I do find it deeply amusing that he believes his own job is socially valuable, equivalent to a manufacturing or agricultural job, or even to a minor-league rock star, because he's an anthropology professor who only lives off the public weal because otherwise, I guess, demand for his services would just to be too great for people to afford.

But, fundamentally, the very notion that there are "too many" of these jobs can only be described as delusional and perhaps a little sick-headed.  Especially in Britain, for Christ's sake.

Also I don't know where he gets the idea that nurses are 1)poorly paid (maybe they are under the NHS?) or 2)would have strategic effects on the economy if they all struck tomorrow.  Nurses are not a link in some kind of goods chain that would break without them.

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

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2013, 01:41:29 PM
corporate attorneys produce no 'tangible benefit'? :hmm:

Somewhat true.  Lawyers are a cost center, and produce literally nothing of value; at absolute best they save you money by clarifying legal relationships, ensuring lawful action, or defending questionably lawful action successfully.

"Reducing exposure" is a tangible benefit, I guess, but you don't make money off marketing your lawyers' successful products liability defense, you make money off the product, which lawyers do not design, make, deliver, or sell.

Quote from: GFNo nurse is making millions of dollar. While some useless CEOs are.

And plenty of people in "bullshit jobs" are making $7.25/hr.  Most nurses make more than most lawyers, that's for fucking sure.  I guess they deserve it a bit more, but both industries are premised on extortion.

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 01:53:25 PM
Nurses are not a link in some kind of goods chain that would break without them.

Hospitals would be pretty fucked without nursing staff.  That said, I agree that nurses can make bank. That's why I advised my cab driver to go to nursing school when he was thinking about law school.

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 02:02:52 PM

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2013, 01:41:29 PM
corporate attorneys produce no 'tangible benefit'? :hmm:

Somewhat true.  Lawyers are a cost center, and produce literally nothing of value; at absolute best they save you money by clarifying legal relationships, ensuring lawful action, or defending questionably lawful action successfully.

"Reducing exposure" is a tangible benefit, I guess, but you don't make money off marketing your lawyers' successful products liability defense, you make money off the product, which lawyers do not design, make, deliver, or sell.

Quote from: GFNo nurse is making millions of dollar. While some useless CEOs are.

And plenty of people in "bullshit jobs" are making $7.25/hr.  Most nurses make more than most lawyers, that's for fucking sure.  I guess they deserve it a bit more, but both industries are premised on extortion.

To defend your kind, you can't have a rule of law without lawyers.

What do you mean by "rent seeker" and by "mismanaged" Ide?

I guess having a bullshit job that pays $7.25 is the worst of both worlds.

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 01:53:25 PM

QuoteYet, after a couple of unsuccessful albums, he'd lost his contract, and plagued with debts and a newborn daughter, ended up, as he put it, "taking the default choice of so many directionless folk: law school." Now he's a corporate lawyer working in a prominent New York firm. He was the first to admit that his job was utterly meaningless, contributed nothing to the world, and, in his own estimation, should not really exist.

There's a lot of questions one could ask here, starting with, what does it say about our society that it seems to generate an extremely limited demand for talented poet-musicians, but an apparently infinite demand for specialists in corporate law?

There's an infinite demand?  That's news.

I suppose I (reluctantly) strongly agree that the economy is badly mismanaged in a way that benefits rent-seekers and harms everyone else--my own job is certainly at best a lot of wasted effort in order to achieve necessary output, at worst a billing scam to steal value from business that actually do things.  And, sure, a lot of jobs are pretty worthless, socially.  I do find it deeply amusing that he believes his own job is socially valuable, equivalent to a manufacturing or agricultural job, or even to a minor-league rock star, because he's an anthropology professor who only lives off the public weal because otherwise, I guess, demand for his services would just to be too great for people to afford.

But, fundamentally, the very notion that there are "too many" of these jobs can only be described as delusional and perhaps a little sick-headed.  Especially in Britain, for Christ's sake.

Also I don't know where he gets the idea that nurses are 1)poorly paid (maybe they are under the NHS?) or 2)would have strategic effects on the economy if they all struck tomorrow.  Nurses are not a link in some kind of goods chain that would break without them.

I read a report on the bbc recently that the number of managers had actually grown during the recession, now hitting 5.5 million out of 29million workforce. 

Soon a B-ark won't be big enough.  :(

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 02:02:52 PM
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. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 02:39:12 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 02:02:52 PM
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. 

but if the other company didn't have a lawyer looking for contract loopholes the first company wouldn't need a lawyer to draft the contract. Cyclical evil :D

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 02:39:12 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 02:02:52 PM
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.

I'm sure at some time in the next 20 years someone will come up with an English to Legalese translator that will cover potential litigation that any individual or corporation might face.  At that point most lawyers will be out of a job and meaningful communication will cease.

Question to the corporate lawyers here: how much of your back office jobs like research or writing documents or whatever was already moved to India or similar places?

Quote from: HVC on August 19, 2013, 02:45:00 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 02:39:12 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 02:02:52 PM
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. 

but if the other company didn't have a lawyer looking for contract loopholes the first company wouldn't need a lawyer to draft the contract. Cyclical evil :D

Its not so much loopholes as creating an agreement that is favourable.  It doesnt necessarily require a lawyer but most times laywers are need to fill in issues that others might not think about.

If nobody in the room thinks about it then they usually end up going to someone like me to litigate over what the law would imply in such circumstances...

Quote from: Zanza on August 19, 2013, 02:57:28 PM
Question to the corporate lawyers here: how much of your back office jobs like research or writing documents or whatever was already moved to India or similar places?

Writing documents is a corporate lawyers bread and butter.  Not sure why they would send out their own work.

Quote from: frunk on August 19, 2013, 02:49:25 PM
I'm sure at some time in the next 20 years someone will come up with an English to Legalese translator that will cover potential litigation that any individual or corporation might face.  At that point most lawyers will be out of a job and meaningful communication will cease.

It already exists.  It is called boilerplate language.  I encourage you all to use it becuase it results in no end of work for people like me. :P

I imagine the skill is not picking the right legalese words to cover yourself in a certain situation, but rather to think of a situation that you need to be covered for.

Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2013, 02:22:49 PM
.....

To defend your kind, you can't have a rule of law without lawyers.

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.   :P

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 03:24:58 PM
It already exists.  It is called boilerplate language.  I encourage you all to use it becuase it results in no end of work for people like me. :P

That doesn't do what I'm talking about.  Boilerplate is a flat one size fits all cover letter that doesn't change what is said.  I'm talking about a dynamic reinterpretation of what someone says or writes into a legally indemnified format that would be sophisticated enough to not change the base meaning while removing any implied legal risks.

Quote from: mongers on August 19, 2013, 03:37:55 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2013, 02:22:49 PM
.....

To defend your kind, you can't have a rule of law without lawyers.

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.   :P

The thing is that you can't both write understandable laws, and write laws that cover all situations.

Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2013, 03:44:46 PM

Quote from: mongers on August 19, 2013, 03:37:55 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2013, 02:22:49 PM
.....

To defend your kind, you can't have a rule of law without lawyers.

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.   :P

The thing is that you can't both write understandable laws, and write laws that cover all situations.

Where is that written?


edit:
Yeah, right it too will have been written by a lawyer.

Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 02:45:41 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 02:39:12 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 02:02:52 PM
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.

Quote from: frunk on August 19, 2013, 03:39:25 PM
I'm talking about a dynamic reinterpretation of what someone says or writes into a legally indemnified format that would be sophisticated enough to not change the base meaning while removing any implied legal risks.

People are working on it, but it isn't there yet.  http://www.koncision.com/

Two items to remember:
1) nothing can be put into legalese before someone asks "what's supposed to happen if X?" and
2) specific language is often more dictated by who has the leverage in the deal than by any other factor.

Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2013, 03:25:07 PM
I imagine the skill is not picking the right legalese words to cover yourself in a certain situation, but rather to think of a situation that you need to be covered for.

Its both really.  The worst kinds of lawyers are the ones that simply rely on precedents to draft their agreements without really understanding what the boilerplate language really means.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 03:47:57 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 02:45:41 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 02:39:12 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 02:02:52 PM
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?

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 02:39:12 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 02:02:52 PM
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.

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2013, 03:50:30 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 02:39:12 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 02:02:52 PM
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. :huh:

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 03:47:57 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 02:45:41 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 02:39:12 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 02:02:52 PM
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.

Quote from: mongers on August 19, 2013, 03:37:55 PM
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.   :P

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.

 :hmm:

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

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

Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 03:54:23 PM
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...

Quote from: Grey Fox on August 19, 2013, 01:57:14 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 03:54:23 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 04:03:29 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 03:54:23 PM
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.

Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 04:44:12 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 04:03:29 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 03:54:23 PM
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).  -_-

Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
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?

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 05:22:35 PM

Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
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. ^_^

Quote from: Syt on August 19, 2013, 01:10:45 PM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2013, 01:21:55 PM
That essay is extraordinary.

Lulz, that was quick. :shareholdervaluecopter:

:occupyrapidresponse:

I was doing volunteer work all day.  You'd appreciate it, Yi:  it's completely free labor.  Absolutely no nasty little inconveniences involved that irk the shit out of you, like compensation.

Speaking of volunteer work, I haven't had to check on old people so far due to the lack of heat this summer. Man, I stick to the plastic covers on the couch.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 19, 2013, 05:45:01 PM
Speaking of volunteer work, I haven't had to check on old people so far due to the lack of heat this summer. Man, I stick to the plastic covers on the couch.

I visited one of my regulars on the way home today, he's had like 3 heart attacks in the last 18 months, the last one being very serious, only saved by some real high-tech.   

Now he's like, "Hi you've only just caught me, just got in from driving 250 miles from up north in about 4 hours".  I think I can say he's on the mend.  :cool:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 04:43:14 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 03:54:23 PM
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.

I agree. I think this was kind of a shitty use of language on the writers part - he is using a very narrow definition of the term "produce" and then implying that anyone who doesn't produce in that narrow sense is somehow a parasite in a more general sense.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 19, 2013, 05:41:05 PM
I was doing volunteer work all day.  You'd appreciate it, Yi:  it's completely free labor.  Absolutely no nasty little inconveniences involved that irk the shit out of you, like compensation.

Volunteer labour also removes the need for social services, so it's a two-fer.

If you're doing volunteer stuff anyhow, maybe do something like taskrabbit.

Some here might not find this particularly germane, but I was reading about how Chinese high-tech start ups operate, often they work in loose groups, where work is traded informally as almost favours, so one company will say if you can manufacture that part of the casing we'll do this part of your motherboard or paint the finished casing/ do the packaging for it.   

The analysis was because this was done informally, based on trust and reputation, then the companies were nibble and able to bring  new products to market noticeably quicker than traditional formally constrained, paperwork bound Western/established companies.

I'd guess lawyers have less of a role to play in the above process than in the Apple/Samsung universe.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 03:55:04 PM

Quote from: mongers on August 19, 2013, 03:37:55 PM
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.   :P

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.

I think most people who have reflected on it realize that lawyers are a necessary and important part of society. However, some successful modern societies are much less litigious and have fewer lawyers than the US (and Canada for that matter), which calls into question whether our legal structure could be more efficient.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 19, 2013, 07:34:17 PM
If you're doing volunteer stuff anyhow, maybe do something like taskrabbit.

Can I get a chick to wash my balls?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2_Yi-1Ryf4

I need to watch Office Space again. Feeling that right now.

Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
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.

You're wrong. 

Quote from: Rule 4.1In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or
fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. [preserving client confidentiality, which has its own exceptions]

Quote from: Rule 3.3A lawyer shall not knowingly:
make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;
fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.

The zealous advocacy portions you refer to are severely qualified.

THe thing is ulmont, the perception is that those technical restrictions aside, the reality of legal practice in the corporate world is that those restrictions are not meaningful, nor are they typically of great concern.

Perhaps that perception is flawed - I certainly don't have any first hand knowledge - but that is certainly the impression I have from what limited dealing with lawyers in the business I've been associated with. Sure, they aren't supposed to come right out and lie, but that leaves a rather immense amount of room for plenty of dishonesty or simply omitting the truth.

Lets be honest ourselves - you can be astoundingly dishonest while never breaking the technical restriction of "make a false statement of material fact". And who enforces such a rule in any case?

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I can say with agreement from everyone who is a real person that all lawyers should be shot and their fetid carcasses left to rot in the sun.

Quote from: ulmont on August 19, 2013, 09:01:11 PM

Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
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.

You're wrong. 

Quote from: Rule 4.1In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or
fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. [preserving client confidentiality, which has its own exceptions]

Quote from: Rule 3.3A lawyer shall not knowingly:
make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;
fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.

The zealous advocacy portions you refer to are severely qualified.

The Soviet constitution granted freedom of speech to Soviet citizens as well.  With these things, the devil is with enforcement, and my impression is that you really have to fuck up big time, or do it publicly, for a professional to incur the wrath of his professional organization.  "Professional courtesy" isn't just for speeding cops and prosecutors.

Anyways, my two cents.

I find that in modern companies a lot resources go into dealing with internal issues or relatively abstract issues between companies (legal concerns - real and perceived, administrative red tape, Sarbanes Oxley, outside consultants to untangle or worsen the mess ...) instead of to directly serving the client: producing your stuff, providing a service etc.

Especially with the legal side of things (and let's not forget the jumbled mess that is tax law, keeping hordes of tax advisers and tax lawyers in business) the question is not whether or not it's necessary (unfortunately it is), but if this is a good state for an economy to be in when one of the most prevalent concerns in any business is whether you might be liable for something and then spend a lot of time and effort to minimize that risk.



Personally, having spent my whole career so far pushing paper, I can understand the job frustrations, and it's sometimes not easy to see what impact your job has.

My first job was accounts payable in a construction company. While I didn't see our construction sites, at least paying our suppliers' bills was pretty tangible.

Next up was paying doctors and hospitals throughout Eastern Europe who participated in clinical studies. Still somewhat tangible, even though I would never have any contact with recipients of the payments, only feedback from colleagues in the respective countries (if that). At the same time there was a lot of IMHO unnecessary bureaucracy, because everyone wanted to cover their ass, and the corporation wanted as much oversight as possible. Which meant that every bill I paid had to be signed by up half a dozen people or more. Not to mention constant audits and reviews. At least pharma research produces something tangible in the end.

Now I'm processing franchise contracts. The tangible benefit? I make sure someone's franchise appears in our system? Make sure that we've received our money? That our regions report their numbers on time? Honestly, I don't see it. I collect figures and send them to people who may or may not read them. I check paperwork, push back when signatures are missing, or the translation of the contracts is missing a paragraph. Yes, it's basically an advanced form of "Papers, Please", and some rules can change as frequently as in the game. And a large part of the job is whether a certain wording is acceptable to us, or what's up with the fee structure of a certain contract. I'm far removed from any real estate client (Agent => Office => Region => Us => International).



Do I enjoy my job? Enjoy is not the right word. I don't mind it, would be more accurate. It's well paid for what's expected, and I like the people I work with.

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2013, 03:55:17 PM
:hmm:

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

No.  Intangible goods and services can have value.  A live performance by a musician can have value.  An hour with a prostitute can have value.

However, until recreational lawsuits and criminal indictments exist, or people buy hornbooks for fun, I can't agree that lawyers produce anything.

The idea that lawyers add value to the economy rather than, as I said, at best, preserving value from destruction, is like saying the military adds value to the economy.  The health industry could perhaps also be included in this category.  It may seem like splitting hairs, since the value of the economy is increased when Canada is deterred from invasion or when someone does not die from cancer, but if organized violence were not a potential threat or illness did not exist, neither the military nor doctors would be necessary.  So with lawyers and the law in general, which defends against arbitrary state action, or, fundamentally, against anarchy.

I would not say they are unnecessary.

Yi: Lawyers' services have market value because of laws created by humans that necessitate lawyers to interpret, apply, and in some cases properly execute them.  Since lawyers often define when legal services are needed and create and inhabit the structures in which the law is interpreted, applied, and executed--much to their own profit and much to the detriment of clients and society, see, e.g. doc review, discovery as a form of extortion, law schools, nuisance lawsuits, unnecessary billing, and so on--that's the definition of rent-seeking as I understand it.  Perhaps I misused the word, however.

Quote from: Caliga on August 19, 2013, 03:55:50 PM
nvm, I just got caught up in the thread and understand it now. :blush:

Shit.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 03:23:49 PM

Quote from: Zanza on August 19, 2013, 02:57:28 PM
Question to the corporate lawyers here: how much of your back office jobs like research or writing documents or whatever was already moved to India or similar places?

Writing documents is a corporate lawyers bread and butter.  Not sure why they would send out their own work.

Because Indians may be cheaper than Americans? Programming is a software companies bread and butter and they certainly send it to India. A lot of banks also have moved their back office operations to India, so I guess it can only be a question of time until that's done with legal services too. Writing a contract is something that doesn't need to be done onsite, so as soon as you have qualified resources in India, there is no reason not to have the work done there. I wonder if there are already Indian universities that teach American corporate law.   

Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2013, 03:15:47 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 03:23:49 PM
Writing documents is a corporate lawyers bread and butter.  Not sure why they would send out their own work.

Because Indians may be cheaper than Americans? Programming is a software companies bread and butter and they certainly send it to India. A lot of banks also have moved their back office operations to India, so I guess it can only be a question of time until that's done with legal services too. Writing a contract is something that doesn't need to be done onsite, so as soon as you have qualified resources in India, there is no reason not to have the work done there. I wonder if there are already Indian universities that teach American corporate law.   

Can't speak for Germany or Canuckistan, but Americans have flocked to it as a byproduct of the service economy- with the time zone differential, an attorney can close up the office, forward the work to India, be charged cents on the dollars, have it completely drafted when the office opens in the morning, and bill the customer full rate.  It speeds up the flow of work, since it eliminates that pesky need for "sleep."

All regulatory stuff stays here, though, from HIPAA to SOX.  But hey, this isn't the first time you've mentioned how everything's been outsourced to India.  Don't know where that's coming from.

Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 09:05:24 PM
Perhaps that perception is flawed - I certainly don't have any first hand knowledge - but that is certainly the impression I have from what limited dealing with lawyers in the business I've been associated with. Sure, they aren't supposed to come right out and lie, but that leaves a rather immense amount of room for plenty of dishonesty or simply omitting the truth.

I'm not sure exactly what dealings you guys are having where a lawyer would be talking to you or have any motivation to lie.  Lawyers are not allowed to talk to anyone represented by counsel except through their counsel, which means that in the context of any sort of meaningful business deal (with lawyers on both sides), the lawyers talk to their business guys and to the other side's lawyers (with occasional larger calls with lawyers for both sides and business guys for both sides).  Further, while there's certainly a motivation in a contested matter to put one's client's position in the most favorable light, this is again usually lawyer-lawyer (and, at the end of the day, determining whose interpretation of the contested facts is correct is what judges and juries are for).

Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 09:05:24 PM
And who enforces such a rule in any case?

Usually the Supreme Court of the appropriate jurisdiction.  For example, in this list of Georgia Supreme Court opinions, practically everything starting with "In the Matter of" is an order relating to lawyer discipline.
http://www.gasupreme.us/sc-op/opinion_lists/2013_opinions.php

Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2013, 10:30:53 PM
The Soviet constitution granted freedom of speech to Soviet citizens as well.  With these things, the devil is with enforcement, and my impression is that you really have to fuck up big time, or do it publicly, for a professional to incur the wrath of his professional organization.  "Professional courtesy" isn't just for speeding cops and prosecutors.

Well, God forbid you let anything get in the way of your impression.

Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2013, 03:15:47 AM
Because Indians may be cheaper than Americans? Programming is a software companies bread and butter and they certainly send it to India. A lot of banks also have moved their back office operations to India, so I guess it can only be a question of time until that's done with legal services too. Writing a contract is something that doesn't need to be done onsite, so as soon as you have qualified resources in India, there is no reason not to have the work done there. I wonder if there are already Indian universities that teach American corporate law.

There are some larger regulatory issues in play, like not being able to practice law in the United States (i.e., write the contracts for the bank) unless you are a member of the appropriate jurisdiction.  So the bank almost has to hire legal services from a local firm, which then has little motivation to outsource its work (among other factors, someone licensed in the jurisdiction would have to review all the work, etc. etc.).  Some document review (i.e., Ide's job) has gone to India, but not a lot in light of concerns over confidentiality and a preference to have licensed attorneys doing the review work.

Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2013, 03:15:47 AM
Because Indians may be cheaper than Americans? Programming is a software companies bread and butter and they certainly send it to India. A lot of banks also have moved their back office operations to India, so I guess it can only be a question of time until that's done with legal services too. Writing a contract is something that doesn't need to be done onsite, so as soon as you have qualified resources in India, there is no reason not to have the work done there. I wonder if there are already Indian universities that teach American corporate law.

Or before. They haven't waited for that condition with other industries.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 20, 2013, 07:42:09 AM
Can't speak for Germany or Canuckistan, but Americans have flocked to it as a byproduct of the service economy- with the time zone differential, an attorney can close up the office, forward the work to India, be charged cents on the dollars, have it completely drafted when the office opens in the morning, and bill the customer full rate.  It speeds up the flow of work, since it eliminates that pesky need for "sleep."

Language-related outsourcing in Germany can typically only be done near-shore to Eastern Europe as you'll just not find people that can speak or write German in other regions of the world. Doesn't make sense to find the ten Indians that speak German to open a call-center there.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 20, 2013, 08:42:39 AM

Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2013, 03:15:47 AM
Because Indians may be cheaper than Americans? Programming is a software companies bread and butter and they certainly send it to India. A lot of banks also have moved their back office operations to India, so I guess it can only be a question of time until that's done with legal services too. Writing a contract is something that doesn't need to be done onsite, so as soon as you have qualified resources in India, there is no reason not to have the work done there. I wonder if there are already Indian universities that teach American corporate law.

Or before. They haven't waited for that condition with other industries.

Recently my company has moved everything back "in-house" so to speak to our offices in Malaysia.

Quote from: ulmont on August 20, 2013, 08:34:10 AM
There are some larger regulatory issues in play, like not being able to practice law in the United States (i.e., write the contracts for the bank) unless you are a member of the appropriate jurisdiction.  So the bank almost has to hire legal services from a local firm, which then has little motivation to outsource its work (among other factors, someone licensed in the jurisdiction would have to review all the work, etc. etc.).  Some document review (i.e., Ide's job) has gone to India, but not a lot in light of concerns over confidentiality and a preference to have licensed attorneys doing the review work.

Only using American lawyers to review the work of five to ten Indians could still make sense. Confidentiality is something that can be enforced via civil law and it's not like companies shy from outsourcing their entire data processing to third parties.

Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 09:05:24 PM
THe thing is ulmont, the perception is that those technical restrictions aside, the reality of legal practice in the corporate world is that those restrictions are not meaningful, nor are they typically of great concern.

Perhaps that perception is flawed - I certainly don't have any first hand knowledge - but that is certainly the impression I have from what limited dealing with lawyers in the business I've been associated with. Sure, they aren't supposed to come right out and lie, but that leaves a rather immense amount of room for plenty of dishonesty or simply omitting the truth.

There are a lot of lawyers and some no doubt conduct themselves dishonestly.  But that is not the norm, nor is it good practice in terms of serving the client's interest.  Dishonesty in a transaction is likely to expose the client to litigation (for fraudulent inducement) and the lawyer to professional complaint.  In the long run the lawyer's reputation is harmed and people will be reluctant to sit on the other side of the transactions.    Dishonesty in litigation is even worse practice - judges are usually pretty savvy about ferreting out the facts, and one of the worst things a lawyer can do in a case is shred their credibility with the court.  In the corporate world these considerations are usually even greater.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 07:48:05 AM
All regulatory stuff stays here, though, from HIPAA to SOX.

Ah, that's of course nice when the government protects your bullshit business. ;)

Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 09:05:24 PM
THe thing is ulmont, the perception is that those technical restrictions aside, the reality of legal practice in the corporate world is that those restrictions are not meaningful, nor are they typically of great concern.

Perhaps that perception is flawed - I certainly don't have any first hand knowledge - but that is certainly the impression I have from what limited dealing with lawyers in the business I've been associated with. Sure, they aren't supposed to come right out and lie, but that leaves a rather immense amount of room for plenty of dishonesty or simply omitting the truth.

Lets be honest ourselves - you can be astoundingly dishonest while never breaking the technical restriction of "make a false statement of material fact". And who enforces such a rule in any case?

These are not "technical rules".  Lawyers cannot be "astoundingly dishonest" and stay within our rules of professional ethics.  If we breach them we get disbarred.  The Rules are enforced by the Law societies in each jurisdiction.  In the case of BC the board is made up of non lawyers and lawyers and enforcement of our code of conduct is rigorous.

If you have first hand knowledge of a dishonest lawyer then that is unfortunate.  In my experience, after having dealt with literally hundreds of lawyers over the course of my career, I have to say your situation is the exception.

In addition to our Code of Conduct is the practical reality that no one wants to deal with a dishonest lawyer - not the client, not other lawyers and certainly not the courts.  At the end of the day our reputation is all we have to offer to our clients and so our profession is self regulating in the practical sense that a dishonest lawyer will soon have little prospect for the future of their practice.

Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2013, 10:17:32 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 07:48:05 AM
All regulatory stuff stays here, though, from HIPAA to SOX.

Ah, that's of course nice when the government protects your bullshit business. ;)

My point is, all this bullshit about legal outsourcing is exactly that: bullshit.  Boilerplate contract language?   Big fucking deal.  It's about as important and productive as outsourcing HR verifications to India for $50 a pop.  The important shit worth countless billions is still being generated here.

Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2013, 10:15:55 AM
Only using American lawyers to review the work of five to ten Indians could still make sense. Confidentiality is something that can be enforced via civil law and it's not like companies shy from outsourcing their entire data processing to third parties.

1) Again, who's motivated to do this?  It's not the American lawyers; it would be the American clients that would have to push this.  Since the only reason to push this would be for price, it would be easier for the American clients to find a cheaper law firm (or solo practitioner).
2) Quite a few companies do shy from "outsourcing their entire data processing to third parties" for similar reasons.

Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2013, 10:15:55 AM

Quote from: ulmont on August 20, 2013, 08:34:10 AM
There are some larger regulatory issues in play, like not being able to practice law in the United States (i.e., write the contracts for the bank) unless you are a member of the appropriate jurisdiction.  So the bank almost has to hire legal services from a local firm, which then has little motivation to outsource its work (among other factors, someone licensed in the jurisdiction would have to review all the work, etc. etc.).  Some document review (i.e., Ide's job) has gone to India, but not a lot in light of concerns over confidentiality and a preference to have licensed attorneys doing the review work.

Only using American lawyers to review the work of five to ten Indians could still make sense. Confidentiality is something that can be enforced via civil law and it's not like companies shy from outsourcing their entire data processing to third parties.

Thing is, we're actually competitive on price.  And since we speak real English, rather than pidgin Indian English, we tend to turn out a superior work product.

Quote from: ulmont on August 20, 2013, 11:01:09 AM

Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2013, 10:15:55 AM
Only using American lawyers to review the work of five to ten Indians could still make sense. Confidentiality is something that can be enforced via civil law and it's not like companies shy from outsourcing their entire data processing to third parties.

1) Again, who's motivated to do this?  It's not the American lawyers; it would be the American clients that would have to push this.  Since the only reason to push this would be for price, it would be easier for the American clients to find a cheaper law firm (or solo practitioner).

The people motivated to do this are those who wish to bid for a client and can offer a lower bill rate. The "American lawyers" who would want this are those who want the business that is currently going to someone who does not outsource - they can offer their services for a fraction of the cost.

If traditional firm charges $200/hour average, and offshoring firm can offer 25% of their work at $200/hour, and 75% at $80/hour (while offshoring that 75% out at $40/hour) they have a pretty large competitive advantage....if they can keep the quality, of course.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 10:55:46 AM

Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2013, 10:17:32 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 07:48:05 AM
All regulatory stuff stays here, though, from HIPAA to SOX.

Ah, that's of course nice when the government protects your bullshit business. ;)

My point is, all this bullshit about legal outsourcing is exactly that: bullshit.  Boilerplate contract language?   Big fucking deal.  It's about as important and productive as outsourcing HR verifications to India for $50 a pop.  The important shit worth countless billions is still being generated here.

Actually, the thing worth "countless billions" is the most susceptible to outsourcing (although really it's automation that frightens me, for reasons outlined in my previous post).

You think BigLaw makes its money by drafting a few novel contracts?  Some, yes.  But the big business is in corporate litigation.  Litigation means discovery, which means document review, which means an army of temps or foreigners going through millions of emails and spreadsheets, and being billed out at three to ten times their labor cost.  That's the countless (highly countable) billions, and the work will die as soon as 1)jurisdictions begin to permit unfettered automation and 2)general counsels decide to stop wasting their companies' monies.

The first wave, offshoring then inshoring (which I benefited from) is already past.  But in a few years, it will be computers.

Hell, I'm sort of surprised and impressed by how BigLaw has managed to protect their money machines so successfully over the past twenty years.  Assuming the work is necessary in the first place--which I can get behind, in the absence of automation, someone does have to actually do the work of production and redaction--there is nothing about a JD that prepares one to do the work, other than to endure boredom; if I were king, and if I were thinking about the common welfare, I'd permit non-lawyers to do it.

I wouldn't permit foreigners to do it, because if I were king we'd be an autarkic economy, but that's a different issue.

I dunno.  Perhaps it's just [firm name] that makes its money off such business, and not all BigLaw firms.

Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2013, 11:18:45 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 10:55:46 AM
My point is, all this bullshit about legal outsourcing is exactly that: bullshit.  Boilerplate contract language?   Big fucking deal.  It's about as important and productive as outsourcing HR verifications to India for $50 a pop.  The important shit worth countless billions is still being generated here.

Actually, the thing worth "countless billions" is the most susceptible to outsourcing (although really it's automation that frightens me, for reasons outlined in my previous post).

You think BigLaw makes its money by drafting a few novel contracts?  Some, yes.  But the big business is in corporate litigation.  Litigation means discovery, which means document review, which means an army of temps or foreigners going through millions of emails and spreadsheets, and being billed out at three to ten times their labor cost.  That's the countless (highly countable) billions, and the work will die as soon as 1)jurisdictions begin to permit unfettered automation and 2)general counsels decide to stop wasting their companies' monies.

The first wave, offshoring then inshoring (which I benefited from) is already past.  But in a few years, it will be computers.

Hell, I'm sort of surprised and impressed by how BigLaw has managed to protect their money machines so successfully over the past twenty years.  Assuming the work is necessary in the first place--which I can get behind, in the absence of automation, someone does have to actually do the work of production and redaction--there is nothing about a JD that prepares one to do the work, other than to endure boredom; if I were king, and if I were thinking about the common welfare, I'd permit non-lawyers to do it.

I wouldn't permit foreigners to do it, because if I were king we'd be an autarkic economy, but that's a different issue.

I dunno.  Perhaps it's just [firm name] that makes its money off such business, and not all BigLaw firms.

I'm not referencing BigLaw, I'm talking about internal Legal Departments and in-house counsel embedded within organizations.  Not everything in the Fortune 500 is outsourced to legal mercenaries.

That's like one of GC's biggest jobs, to outsource discovery work during litigation to a firm.

Contracts and such are not worth billions to the in-house people, it's worth billions to the companies they work for; I thought you meant the actual billions in revenue "generated" by lawyers.

Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2013, 11:18:45 AM
You think BigLaw makes its money by drafting a few novel contracts?  Some, yes.  But the big business is in corporate litigation.  Litigation means discovery, which means document review, which means an army of temps or foreigners going through millions of emails and spreadsheets, and being billed out at three to ten times their labor cost. 

Ide, you have a really distorted view of economics within legal firms.  I can only think that it because you have limited exposure to how firms work and you are employed in a company that services outsourcing of litigation support and so your view is necessarily limited.  Most large firms are run by the commericial solicitors.  That is where the money is percieved to be.  Simple things like being the official records and filing office for a corporations can generate millions in routine corporate filing requirements that can be done for next to no effort.   Add to that all corp reorg and the big money makers of mergers and acquisitions and the revenue stream really starts ramping up.  Litigation discovery work pales in comparison to the type of due diligence work done in any reasonably sized merger or acquisition.

Litigation also does not provide as steady a stream of income.  It is generally one off type stuff - although some rare clients do tend to generate a reliable number of pieces litigation (slip and fall cases in department stores for example).  But by and large large pieces of litigation come and go and are a lot more unpredictable in terms of revenue streams to the firm.

As a result corporate lawyers tend to be over renumerated and litation partners tend to be under renumerated within firms relative to eachother.  That is one of the reason, over the last 20-25 years, more and more boutique litigation practices have developed.   Litigators have realized they can make more money on their own.

There is still a large attraction to being part of a large firm for some litigators but generally those will be people who are able to specialize in a paricular area because they have developed a relationships with a solitor group within the firm that feed the litigator his work. 

Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2013, 11:16:18 AM
If traditional firm charges $200/hour average, and offshoring firm can offer 25% of their work at $200/hour, and 75% at $80/hour (while offshoring that 75% out at $40/hour) they have a pretty large competitive advantage....if they can keep the quality, of course.

While not disagreeing with your math, I think there are some items you're not considering (such as the larger firms not competing on price, the smaller firms not being able to get the volume of work necessary to have this happen, and ignoring the existence of cheap solos).  But I think that any useful further discussion would need to be done in person, over beer.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 11:27:32 AM
I'm not referencing BigLaw, I'm talking about internal Legal Departments and in-house counsel embedded within organizations.  Not everything in the Fortune 500 is outsourced to legal mercenaries.

I am working for a Fortune 500 company and our legal department seems to be fairly small and the lawyers all seem to be in the rank of a senior manager or higher, so rather expensive employees. I don't know, but I would be surprised if they didn't give most of their issues to law firms and mainly review what their suppliers gave them. 

Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2013, 12:29:53 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 11:27:32 AM
I'm not referencing BigLaw, I'm talking about internal Legal Departments and in-house counsel embedded within organizations.  Not everything in the Fortune 500 is outsourced to legal mercenaries.

I am working for a Fortune 500 company and our legal department seems to be fairly small and the lawyers all seem to be in the rank of a senior manager or higher, so rather expensive employees. I don't know, but I would be surprised if they didn't give most of their issues to law firms and mainly review what their suppliers gave them.

It really depends on how things are set up.  In my practice it is often the other way around where the inhouse folks do most of the mundane day to day stuff and it is only when something unusual comes around that they ask for outside help to review and advise as to what they have already done and perhaps to take over the file to some extent.  Most inhouse lawyers will not do any of litigation of course and so all of that would come to me.  But by definition litigation would be unusual so that fits with the basic model.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 11:37:50 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2013, 11:18:45 AM
You think BigLaw makes its money by drafting a few novel contracts?  Some, yes.  But the big business is in corporate litigation.  Litigation means discovery, which means document review, which means an army of temps or foreigners going through millions of emails and spreadsheets, and being billed out at three to ten times their labor cost. 

Ide, you have a really distorted view of economics within legal firms.  I can only think that it because you have limited exposure to how firms work and you are employed in a company that services outsourcing of litigation support and so your view is necessarily limited.  Most large firms are run by the commericial solicitors.  That is where the money is percieved to be.  Simple things like being the official records and filing office for a corporations can generate millions in routine corporate filing requirements that can be done for next to no effort.   Add to that all corp reorg and the big money makers of mergers and acquisitions and the revenue stream really starts ramping up.  Litigation discovery work pales in comparison to the type of due diligence work done in any reasonably sized merger or acquisition.

Litigation also does not provide as steady a stream of income.  It is generally one off type stuff - although some rare clients do tend to generate a reliable number of pieces litigation (slip and fall cases in department stores for example).  But by and large large pieces of litigation come and go and are a lot more unpredictable in terms of revenue streams to the firm.

As a result corporate lawyers tend to be over renumerated and litation partners tend to be under renumerated within firms relative to eachother.  That is one of the reason, over the last 20-25 years, more and more boutique litigation practices have developed.   Litigators have realized they can make more money on their own.

There is still a large attraction to being part of a large firm for some litigators but generally those will be people who are able to specialize in a paricular area because they have developed a relationships with a solitor group within the firm that feed the litigator his work.

Hmm.  That's fair enough.

Quote5 Trends in In-House Counsel Compensation
By Marlisse Silver Sweeney
Corporate Counsel
June 26, 2013

Are the pay packages in your legal department keeping up with the Joneses? The new "In-House Counsel Compensation Report" from General Counsel Metrics LLC and Major, Lindsey & Africa, a legal search firm, deciphers the trends in compensation by compiling data from over 1,700 in-house lawyers at approximately 480 U.S. and Canadian companies. The information used for the report includes: base salaries, cash bonuses, law school graduation years, primary practice areas, company revenues, and company industries.

"It's data that we all deal with a lot, but we never collected it all at once and analyzed it," Rees Morrison, president of GC Metrics told CorpCounsel.com. He says the report provides a "roadmap for roughly figuring out where [counsel] sit on [the compensation] spectrum."

"There's so much hype around lawyer compensation in general, and I think the expectation is that it's very high," Bob Graff, vice president of global business development at ML&A told CorpCounsel.com. In reality, he noted that in-house lawyers and GCs probably work more predictable, shorter hours than their Big Law counterparts, and thus salaries are "in a much tighter, realistic range," says Graff. "They're not as high as people may think."

Just how high are they? From company revenue to practice experience, the report found five major trends:

1. Experience matters in-house

"Median base salaries for in-house lawyers cross the $180,000 mark at about 20 years experience, and peak at about 30 years out of law school," the report says. The median salary for a lawyer who graduated law school in 1975 is $195,000, whereas the median salary for a lawyer who graduated in 2010 is $75,000. Not surprisingly, bonus levels for all in-house lawyers peak at 25-30 years of experience.

2. The size of the company and industry correlate to the size of a GC's bonus

The report found that general counsel's bonuses, "do not appear to be highly correlated with years of experience." For GCs, the size of the company and the industry were more relevant to their bonuses. For GC base salaries, the years of practice experience were pertinent, but the report found that regardless of experience, "the bulk of GCs . . . make a base salary of approximately $250,000."

3. Extractive/mining/chemicals is the most lucrative industry for in-house counsel

The extractive/mining/chemicals category is the highest-paid sector for general counsel, followed by the food and beverage industry.

For in-house counsel at all levels, the medical device and pharmaceutical sectors join the extractive industry to round out the highest-paid industries. For both GCs and in-house lawyers, not-for-profit is, not shockingly, the lowest-paid sector.

4. Salaries are comparable for in-house lawyers across company sizes

The report found that "across all company sizes, median total cash compensation for all in-house lawyers is in a remarkably tight range." The median total compensation, which includes base salary and cash bonuses, for in-house lawyers working for companies with revenues of less than $1 billion is $170,000. The median salary for lawyers working at companies with revenues of more than $5 billion is $205,405.

"It's as if Corporate America has hit upon roughly . . . the value in-house lawyers bring and then tend to coalesce around that value for the total cash compensation," says Morrison. There is a similarly tight range with respect to in-house bonuses—with the exception of lawyers practicing in the securities industry, whose median bonuses were $48,000, compared to $28,000 bonuses in the second-highest industry, mergers and acquisitions.

5. Past $1 billion in revenue, GC salaries stay in a tight range

For general counsel, once the company's revenue passes the $1 billion dollar range, base salaries stay in a comparable range. GCs who work for companies with less than a billion in revenue can expect a median salary of $245,000. At the $1 billion revenue mark, salaries start at a $320,000 median, and then bump up to $350,000 for those working at a company with over $5 billion dollars in revenue.

I think there is a perception out there that lawyering is a matter of mastering the right arcane mumbo-jumbo, which can (and maybe should) be either simplified, handed over to a computer to do, or outsourced to India.  ;)

Fact is, there is a certain amount of jargon and mumbo-jumbo in the lawyering world as there is in any profession - but at base, good lawyering requires a deep knowledge of the client's affairs, a deep knowledge of the local circumstances (both regulatory and practical), and the ability, through experience, to foresee the types of problems that can arise - and prevent them. I'm talking about corporate and regulatory lawyering, not litigation, of course - litigation is all about solving problems that haven't been prevented.

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 ...

I would flay a thousand lawyers and use their skulls for my throne.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 22, 2013, 08:49:27 AM
I would flay a thousand lawyers and use their skulls for my throne.

Can't.  We'll need them when we privatize everything from the public school systems to the USPS to Detroit.  When government is eliminated once and for all, we're going to need GCs to make sure everything runs correctly according to corporate policy.

Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2013, 08:47:01 AM
I think there is a perception out there that lawyering is a matter of mastering the right arcane mumbo-jumbo, which can (and maybe should) be either simplified, handed over to a computer to do, or outsourced to India.  ;)

Fact is, there is a certain amount of jargon and mumbo-jumbo in the lawyering world as there is in any profession - but at base, good lawyering requires a deep knowledge of the client's affairs, a deep knowledge of the local circumstances (both regulatory and practical), and the ability, through experience, to foresee the types of problems that can arise - and prevent them. I'm talking about corporate and regulatory lawyering, not litigation, of course - litigation is all about solving problems that haven't been prevented.

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 ...

But the lawyers do not plan out how the business is to operate - that is the job of the people who manage the business. Deciding if the baby sleepware needs to be separately tested is NOT "planning how the business will operate" it is figuring out how to apply the law to a particular products testing, and absent said law and the potential litigation that goes laong with such laws, the lawyer is not needed. Again, they are not producing anything, they are simply making sure that the business avoids costs.

They don't decide how to make the sleepwear, or how to market it, or where to place it in the store, or what it should be made out of, or who should make it, or any of those things. I am certina that they have input into decisions that do in fact impact the competitive success of the business, but mostly that is tangential to their actual job which is to protect the business from costs associated with the legal requirements and legal exposure of doing business. Absent those requirements or that exposure, they have no job, or certainly no job that could not be done by someone without a legal degree, and hence not a lawyer.

But I suspect this isn't an argument that can possibly get any traction with the lawyers.

Hell, here is another anaology: Lawyers are like officials in sports. That is something that I do, and I am perfectly content to say that we do not produce a damn thing, and if you could structure competitive sports business in such a way that our services were not needed, as a business you would be better off - we do not "produce" anything when it comes to sports. If you could make it so the players always followed the rules, we could (and would) be ditched immediately and replaced by people whose job it was to simply manage the mechanics of the game. And if you could have a game where even that wasn't necessary, you certainly would. We are not part of the product, we are just there because the alternative is worse.

Meh.

Nurses do a shitty job but let`s face it: there is kind of a big supply of people who are capable to wipe shit off old people`s arses and stuff. Less supply of decent corporate lawyers.

Supply and demand :P And if anybody seriously think that in this age and economy only the ones actually doing the producing are necessary, then they don`t know what they are talking about.

Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2013, 09:04:45 AM
Meh.

Nurses do a shitty job but let`s face it: there is kind of a big supply of people who are capable to wipe shit off old people`s arses and stuff. Less supply of decent corporate lawyers.

Supply and demand :P And if anybody seriously think that in this age and economy only the ones actually doing the producing are necessary, then they don`t know what they are talking about.

Just to be clear, I am not and would not argue that the idiotic premise of the article writer is accurate - whether or not you are a production or a cost center is largely immaterial to his basic point. The idea that just because some role is more of a cost than a production role therefore it is less worthy is just plain stupid.

I don't think corporate lawyers, in general, are a waste of resources by any means. I think they fill a perfectly necessary need, and are compensated accordingly.

Now, I *do* think that in the US the particulars of our system have ill served us by creating something of a positive feedback loop where lawyers have society wide inflated their role by sticking their grubby ass little fingers into the process of defining our legal structure in a way that inflates the need for lawyers. But I suspect that is a particular phenomenon, not a general one.

Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2013, 09:04:45 AM
Nurses do a shitty job but let`s face it: there is kind of a big supply of people who are capable to wipe shit off old people`s arses and stuff. Less supply of decent corporate lawyers.

I've always thought that nurses get kind of screwed by the very term "nurse". It is way too general, and refers to basically anyone who provides any kind of healthcare who is not a doctor.

But the difference between some associate degree candy striper who pretty much changes bedpans and brings people their meds in a little paper cup and maybe takes some blood pressure and a nurse with a masters (or even doctorate) who assists a brain surgeon doing surgical procedures, or a neo-natal ICU nursing specialist is pretty stark. Calling them both the same basic job description seems kind of ridiculous.

Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2013, 09:04:45 AM
Nurses do a shitty job but let`s face it: there is kind of a big supply of people who are capable to wipe shit off old people`s arses and stuff. Less supply of decent corporate lawyers.

There is actually a shortage of nurses and an excess of lawyers :hmm:

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 09:12:58 AM

Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2013, 09:04:45 AM
Nurses do a shitty job but let`s face it: there is kind of a big supply of people who are capable to wipe shit off old people`s arses and stuff. Less supply of decent corporate lawyers.

I've always thought that nurses get kind of screwed by the very term "nurse". It is way too general, and refers to basically anyone who provides any kind of healthcare who is not a doctor.

You have to remember that Tamas is defining the term "nurse" from an Eastern European shithole gypsy fucktard perspective.  He simply doesn't know any better.

I thought the people who changed bed pans were called orderlies.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 22, 2013, 09:15:57 AM
I thought the people who changed bed pans were called orderlies.

Hospitals got rid of orderlies decades ago.

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 09:01:19 AM
Hell, here is another anaology: Lawyers are like officials in sports. That is something that I do, and I am perfectly content to say that we do not produce a damn thing, and if you could structure competitive sports business in such a way that our services were not needed, as a business you would be better off - we do not "produce" anything when it comes to sports. If you could make it so the players always followed the rules, we could (and would) be ditched immediately and replaced by people whose job it was to simply manage the mechanics of the game. And if you could have a game where even that wasn't necessary, you certainly would. We are not part of the product, we are just there because the alternative is worse.

That's a fair analogy, I guess.  I know that in a perfect world my job wouldn't exist, as people wouldn't be committing crime.

But you can say that about a lot of jobs.  Lots of jobs are set up to ensure that other people are doing their jobs correctly, and aren't trying to screw the system.  Accounts payable was mentioned.  Any of a variety of security positions.  Human resources.  Lots of management positions.

Unfortunately, given the imperfections of the human race, we do need these kinds of oversight / rules enforcing jobs.  Saying that they don't produce anything is true in one sense, but seems to miss the bigger picture - without them you'd be producing even less.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2013, 09:18:45 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 22, 2013, 09:15:57 AM
I thought the people who changed bed pans were called orderlies.

Hospitals got rid of orderlies decades ago.

Don't nursing assistants exist though?

Yeah surely you do not have to be a full fledged RN to have even the lowest job in a hospital.

Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2013, 09:20:16 AM
Don't nursing assistants exist though?

Yeah, but he wasn't asking about nursing assistants.  Or nursing students.   Or LPNs.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2013, 09:23:26 AM

Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2013, 09:20:16 AM
Don't nursing assistants exist though?

Yeah, but he wasn't asking about nursing assistants.  Or nursing students.   Or LPNs.

Okay. Pretty clear that Teach was suggesting that there actually are positions that don't have to be shorthanded to nurse (i.e. they aren't all called the same). A nursing assistant isn't a nurse, even if one incorrectly labels them one. Nor is a PCA.

There's a shitload of different levels of nurses and patient care professionals.  But orderlies went the way of the carrier pigeon, which is a shame.

Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2013, 09:19:46 AM
Unfortunately, given the imperfections of the human race, we do need these kinds of oversight / rules enforcing jobs.  Saying that they don't produce anything is true in one sense, but seems to miss the bigger picture - without them you'd be producing even less.

Exactly right.

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 09:01:19 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2013, 08:47:01 AM
I think there is a perception out there that lawyering is a matter of mastering the right arcane mumbo-jumbo, which can (and maybe should) be either simplified, handed over to a computer to do, or outsourced to India.  ;)

Fact is, there is a certain amount of jargon and mumbo-jumbo in the lawyering world as there is in any profession - but at base, good lawyering requires a deep knowledge of the client's affairs, a deep knowledge of the local circumstances (both regulatory and practical), and the ability, through experience, to foresee the types of problems that can arise - and prevent them. I'm talking about corporate and regulatory lawyering, not litigation, of course - litigation is all about solving problems that haven't been prevented.

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 ...

But the lawyers do not plan out how the business is to operate - that is the job of the people who manage the business.

Absolutely. And architects do not plan the business concepts behind shopping malls - that is the job of the people who operate the business.

*However*, one cannot successfully plan out a shopping mall without an architect, because they translate the strategic decisions made by the business planners into workable reality, taking into account stuff like building codes and the nuts-and-bolts of how one physically puts stuff together, brick by brick.

Similarly, it is totally the job of business planners to plan out their business - for example, the business of selling sleepware for children. They determine the market, the styles, the competition, the advertising campaigns, the strategic alliances, the dealings with distributors and manufacturers, everything.

However, they simply cannot do it without lawyers. Lawyers translate the business models dreamed up by the business types into actual, nuts-and-bolts reality. Have an advertising canmpaign? You had better know, for example, what laws there are in Quebec concerning posting advertisements, if you plan to sell in Quebec. Have to buy sleepware from a manufacturer? How do you plan to import it? Dies it meet local codes? What happens if the stuff is crap and injures someone? Better have answers to those questions.   

QuoteDeciding if the baby sleepware needs to be separately tested is NOT "planning how the business will operate" it is figuring out how to apply the law to a particular products testing, and absent said law and the potential litigation that goes laong with such laws, the lawyer is not needed. Again, they are not producing anything, they are simply making sure that the business avoids costs.

Now this is simply not true. I'm speaking from experience here - knowing this sort of detail IS "planning how the business will operate". To take this very specific example, if the stuff need not be seperately tested, the US and Canadian operations can directly share the same stream of manufacture, which is absolutely vital to how the business operates (again, in a nuts-and-bolts fashion).

Quote
They don't decide how to make the sleepwear, or how to market it, or where to place it in the store, or what it should be made out of, or who should make it, or any of those things.

On the contrary, they are involved in ALL of these decisions.

To take but one example (I could give similar ones for each of the factors you name) - you have asserted that lawyers are not involved in the decision of "where to place it in the store". You would perhaps be surprised to know that such decisions - where goods are placed in the store, whether at eye-level, or the top shelf, or by the check-out desk - are all matters that are highly negotiated and subject to strict contractual control; and who does those negotiations and who drafts those contracts? Lawyers.

QuoteI am certina that they have input into decisions that do in fact impact the competitive success of the business, but mostly that is tangential to their actual job which is to protect the business from costs associated with the legal requirements and legal exposure of doing business. Absent those requirements or that exposure, they have no job, or certainly no job that could not be done by someone without a legal degree, and hence not a lawyer.

But I suspect this isn't an argument that can possibly get any traction with the lawyers.

Hell, here is another anaology: Lawyers are like officials in sports. That is something that I do, and I am perfectly content to say that we do not produce a damn thing, and if you could structure competitive sports business in such a way that our services were not needed, as a business you would be better off - we do not "produce" anything when it comes to sports. If you could make it so the players always followed the rules, we could (and would) be ditched immediately and replaced by people whose job it was to simply manage the mechanics of the game. And if you could have a game where even that wasn't necessary, you certainly would. We are not part of the product, we are just there because the alternative is worse.

I do not fault you for making the arguments you do, they are in fact the common perception. You in turn will not, I am sure, fault me for saying that your perception does not match the reality I see every single day, in my work.

The fact is that no business can possibly operate without someone doing the jobs lawyers do. Your point is like saying that businesses can operate without accountants. Sure, they can operate without someone called an "accountant", but without someone keeping track of the numbers it would not be a very profitable business.

Simply put, someone has to keep track of the way stuff actually works in the real world. The job of the business planners is to think big and to come up with the concepts. The job of professionals like lawyers, achitects and accountants is to translate those big thoughts into tangible reality. Sure, it would be nice if businessess did not need such translation, but that no more works in reality than basing the profitability of a business on the power of prayer.

Lawyers are not like umpires. In a game, everyone knows the rules and the only question is whether people are breaking them deliberately. This analogy may work for what BB does - he prosecutes rule-breakers - but it does not work for what corporate and regulatory lawyers do.

All I learned in my years was never to go to Legal for a ruling on course of action, as the answer will always be "No".

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2013, 09:45:47 AM
All I learned in my years was never to go to Legal for a ruling on course of action, as the answer will always be "No".

Indeed!

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2013, 09:45:47 AM
All I learned in my years was never to go to Legal for a ruling on course of action, as the answer will always be "No".

There are lawyers like that. Crappy ones.

It is always the easy answer to say "no" because it is harder to be blamed for stuff not happening, than for stuff happening but going wrong. So, avoid blame by comming up with all the reasons stuff can't happen (there are always some).

However, in order for a business to operate, stuff has to happen. So a good lawyer will help you find a way to make stuff happen, not just give you all the reasons why stuff can't happen.

Now, there may be some cases where the answer has to be "no", but they should be few. 

How very lawyerly of you Malthus.

I never said (actually the word you used was "asserted"), for example, that lawyers were not involved in those decisions, I said they did not make those decisions. Those decisions are not driven by them - of course they have influence over them in some cases. So what? The janitor probably ahs influence over them as well, but we don't say the janitor produces anything either.

Not the same thing at all. Of course they are involved - so what? Everyone is "involved" or they would not be there. That doesn't make them producers.

QuoteThe fact is that no business can possibly operate without someone doing the jobs lawyers do.

Nobody has made a claim to the contrary. What is your point?

Lots of jobs are perfectly necessary and yet do not produce anything.

QuoteIn a game, everyone knows the rules

:lmfao: x infinity

Quoteand the only question is whether people are breaking them deliberately.

[/quote]
Wow. You have no idea how thoroughly incorrect this statement is, on so many different levels.

I would say probably the LEAST part of my job is trying to determine intent. Mostly because it is nearly impossible in 99% of the plays I have to rule on.

And no...everyone most certainly does NOT know the rules, anymore than "everyone knows the law". They don't know the rules, they don't know the accepted interpretations of the rules, and they don't know how those rules are applied in different situations. They don't know how the mechanics of administering penalties work, they don't know how the mechanics of administering the game itself work, they don't know the nuts and bolts of how the game operates in the corner cases when something odd happens.

In fact, officials are JUST LIKE LAWYERS! The difference is that we are not adversarial, in that the system doesn't allow for each team to have their own officials, but rather we operate as independent and hopefully neutral arbiters.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 22, 2013, 08:49:27 AM
I would flay a thousand lawyers and use their skulls for my throne.

I hope you hire a lawyer to make sure you're not breaking any ordinances.

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 09:57:22 AM
How very lawyerly of you Malthus.

I never said (actually the word you used was "asserted"), for example, that lawyers were not involved in those decisions, I said they did not make those decisions. Those decisions are not driven by them - of course they have influence over them in some cases. So what? The janitor probably ahs influence over them as well, but we don't say the janitor produces anything either.

Not the same thing at all. Of course they are involved - so what? Everyone is "involved" or they would not be there. That doesn't make them producers.

The problem here is I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "producers". Is the person making the decision a "producer"? They "produce" nothing themselves.

In fact, many businesses do NOTHING but, in effect, own intellectual property. All of the other activities - manufacturing, selling - are outsourced. Are they "producers"?

My "assertion" is that no business can operate without a team of professionals (or someone doing their jobs). They are essential aspects of the business, not merely "costs" that can, hopefully, be done away with.

Not sure what your division into "producers" and "non-producers" is intended to achieve. To my mind, it is an irrelevant distinction, or at least one you have not yet explained. Is the person selling stuff at the checkout counter a "producer"?

Quote
Nobody has made a claim to the contrary. What is your point?

On the contrary, you appear to be asserting that lawyers are something businesses would be better off not having to pay for. Not sure what *your* point is, if not that lawyering were somehow fundamentally 'not essential'.

No doubt, businesses would also be better off not paying for advertising, distribution or manufacture, if they could. So what?

Quote
:lmfao: x infinity

Wow. You have no idea how thoroughly incorrect this statement is, on so many different levels.

I would say probably the LEAST part of my job is trying to determine intent. Mostly because it is nearly impossible in 99% of the plays I have to rule on.

And no...everyone most certainly does NOT know the rules, anymore than "everyone knows the law". They don't know the rules, they don't know the accepted interpretations of the rules, and they don't know how those rules are applied in different situations. They don't know how the mechanics of administering penalties work, they don't know how the mechanics of administering the game itself work, they don't know the nuts and bolts of how the game operates in the corner cases when something odd happens.

In fact, officials are JUST LIKE LAWYERS! The difference is that we are not adversarial, in that the system doesn't allow for each team to have their own officials, but rather we operate as independent and hopefully neutral arbiters.

I admit I know nothing about the job of refereeing.  I assumed that everyone who, say, played football, knew the rules of the game.

I stand corrected.

What is amusing to me, is that you quite evidently know nothing about the job of lawyering. Are you willing to admit as much, I wonder?  :hmm:

I know enough to know that they don't produce anything. Which is all I've been arguing. I think you are arguing with someone other than me.

You are confusing me saying that lawyers are an example of a cost center with an argument that they ought to be gotten rid of. Which is weird, since I've stated very clearly several times that I am not making that argument, and in fact found the original claim made in the article stupid.

If you don't understand the difference in business between entitites that are costs, and entities that are production, then go wiki it or something. It isn't some kind of arcane concept.

Lawyers are a cost center, and yes, the business would be better off if they could in fact run their business without that cost. They typically cannot, which is why they pay lawyers.

I keep providing analogies, and you keep rejecting them on the basis of some factor that isn't relevant to the analogy.

Janitors are a cost center - they provide a completely necessary service that does not produce anything. If I make cars for a living, I need someone to sweep up the factory floor every night. If I could have a factory floor that never needed sweeping, then I would not need a janitor, and my business would be more profitable. Of course, like everything, the definitions are not perfectly strict, and you can argue about whether some particular activity falls more on the production side or more on the cost side. But the basic idea that there is such a division is not really debated.

From wiki:

QuoteA cost centre or cost center is a division within a business which is financed from the profit margin adding to the cost of the organization, but contributing to its profit indirectly.


Typical examples include research and development, marketing and customer service.

There are some significant advantages to classifying simple, straightforward divisions as cost centres, since cost is easy to measure. However, cost centres create incentives for managers to underfund their units in order to benefit themselves, and this underfunding may result in adverse consequences for the company as a whole [for example, reduced sales because of bad customer service experiences].

Because the cost centre has a negative impact on profit (at least on the surface) it is a likely target for rollbacks and layoffs when budgets are cut. Operational decisions in a cost centre, for example, are typically driven by cost considerations. Investments in new equipment, technology and staff are often difficult to justify to management because indirect profitability is hard to translate to bottom-line figures.


Business metrics are sometimes employed to quantify the benefits of a cost centre and relate costs and benefits to those of the organization as a whole. In a contact centre, for example, metrics such as average handle time, service level and cost per call are used in conjunction with other calculations to justify current or improved funding

The bit about funding is a great way to think about it, I wish I had mentioned that earlier.

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 10:28:06 AM
I know enough to know that they don't produce anything. Which is all I've been arguing. I think you are arguing with someone other than me.

I'm asking you what you think *does* "produce something". To my mind, it isn't nearly as clear-cut as you claim.

QuoteYou are confusing me saying that lawyers are an example of a cost center with an argument that they ought to be gotten rid of. Which is weird, since I've stated very clearly several times that I am not making that argument, and in fact found the original claim made in the article stupid.

If you don't understand the difference in business between entitites that are costs, and entities that are production, then go wiki it or something. It isn't some kind of arcane concept.

I'm not interested in what Wiki has to say, but in what *you* are saying. 

QuoteLawyers are a cost center, and yes, the business would be better off if they could in fact run their business without that cost. They typically cannot, which is why they pay lawyers.

I keep providing analogies, and you keep rejecting them on the basis of some factor that isn't relevant to the analogy.

Janitors are a cost center - they provide a completely necessary service that does not produce anything. If I make cars for a living, I need someone to sweep up the factory floor every night. If I could have a factory floor that never needed sweeping, then I would not need a janitor, and my business would be more profitable. Of course, like everything, the definitions are not perfectly strict, and you can argue about whether some particular activity falls more on the production side or more on the cost side. But the basic idea that there is such a division is not really debated.

Again, that's about as meaningful as saying businesses would be better off if they could run without any sales staff or R&D. So what? What's the point here?

In your first post you said:

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

[Emphasis]

... and that is what is under debate, not whether or not lawyers are a "cost centre" - a concept you have mentioned for the very first time here. The two are obviously not the same. Or are you claiming Research and Development - which is the very epitomie of a "cost centre" according to the Wikipedia you set such store in - produces "...exactly nothing of value?"  :hmm:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2013, 09:45:47 AM
All I learned in my years was never to go to Legal for a ruling on course of action, as the answer will always be "No".

I made the experience that you need to find the right guy, best if he is someone senior. I work in automating and streamlining business processes and one of the question that always comes up is whether you need physical "wet" signatures in a certain jurisdiction to make documents legally binding. Often the actual business units say yes, it's a legal requirement. But when you get the right lawyer, we often found that you can in fact get rid of physical signatures and only have electronic signatures. That can cause huge efficiency gains in places where they still stamp, sign, chop etc. their documents.

Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2013, 10:44:43 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 10:28:06 AM
I know enough to know that they don't produce anything. Which is all I've been arguing. I think you are arguing with someone other than me.

I'm asking you what you think *does* "produce something". To my mind, it isn't nearly as clear-cut as you claim.

I never claimed it was clear cut, counselor. I said the division exists. It isn't always clear cut at all.


And who does produce something? The parts of the business whose output is something that is sold, of course. Profit centers.

Quote

QuoteYou are confusing me saying that lawyers are an example of a cost center with an argument that they ought to be gotten rid of. Which is weird, since I've stated very clearly several times that I am not making that argument, and in fact found the original claim made in the article stupid.

If you don't understand the difference in business between entitites that are costs, and entities that are production, then go wiki it or something. It isn't some kind of arcane concept.

I'm not interested in what Wiki has to say, but in what *you* are saying. 

And I am saying nothing that isn't said elsewhere. Lawyers are a cost of business, and unless you business is being a lawyer, they are not in the "production" siide of the ledger because they don't produce anything that a business sells.


What I don't get is why the lawyers get so offended at the idea that they are a cost. Hell, most parts of business are costs. The only part that is not is the part that actually makes the things the business sells.


Unless you work for a law firm that sells legal advice, of course. Then you are part of the profit center, of course.

Quote

QuoteLawyers are a cost center, and yes, the business would be better off if they could in fact run their business without that cost. They typically cannot, which is why they pay lawyers.

I keep providing analogies, and you keep rejecting them on the basis of some factor that isn't relevant to the analogy.

Janitors are a cost center - they provide a completely necessary service that does not produce anything. If I make cars for a living, I need someone to sweep up the factory floor every night. If I could have a factory floor that never needed sweeping, then I would not need a janitor, and my business would be more profitable. Of course, like everything, the definitions are not perfectly strict, and you can argue about whether some particular activity falls more on the production side or more on the cost side. But the basic idea that there is such a division is not really debated.

Again, that's about as meaningful as saying businesses would be better off if they could run without any sales staff or R&D. So what? What's the point here?

That lawyers don't produce anything. Nothing more or less. If you don't find that point interesting, then great.

Quote

In your first post you said:

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

[Emphasis]

... and that is what is under debate, not whether or not lawyers are a "cost centre" - a concept you have mentioned for the very first time here.

Not true, I've mentioned that they are a cost several times. The fact that they do not produce anything of value for the company they work for is what defines a cost center. So yeah, I think it is rather relevant.

Wal-mart doesn't sell anything their lawyers produce.

Quote
The two are obviously not the same. Or are you claiming Research and Development - which is the very epitomie of a "cost centre" according to the Wikipedia you set such store in - produces "...exactly nothing of value?"  :hmm:

R&D do not produce anything that the company sells, no. That isn't the same as saying that what they do has no value, only that they don't produce anything of value. Which is rather obvious, since they don't produce anything, they do research. The outcome of which presumably might be the production of something, of course.

But they cost the business money, they do not generate money. You don't sell what the research department produces. They indirectly contribute to profitability.

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 09:57:22 AM
How very lawyerly of you Malthus.

I never said (actually the word you used was "asserted"), for example, that lawyers were not involved in those decisions, I said they did not make those decisions. Those decisions are not driven by them - of course they have influence over them in some cases. So what? The janitor probably ahs influence over them as well, but we don't say the janitor produces anything either.

Not the same thing at all. Of course they are involved - so what? Everyone is "involved" or they would not be there. That doesn't make them producers.

:lol:

Yeah, thats why people pay lawyers hundreds of dollars an hour.  They are just good window dressing.  :lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2013, 11:41:20 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 09:57:22 AM
How very lawyerly of you Malthus.

I never said (actually the word you used was "asserted"), for example, that lawyers were not involved in those decisions, I said they did not make those decisions. Those decisions are not driven by them - of course they have influence over them in some cases. So what? The janitor probably ahs influence over them as well, but we don't say the janitor produces anything either.

Not the same thing at all. Of course they are involved - so what? Everyone is "involved" or they would not be there. That doesn't make them producers.

:lol:

Yeah, thats why people pay lawyers hundreds of dollars an hour.  They are just good window dressing.  :lol:

You lawyers sure are sensitive.

What is funny about this is that this argument has nothing to do with what lawyers actually do - you don't need to know anything about the job of a lawyer to classify them as a cost or a production division of the business (except to know that they are not producing anything the business sells). It isn't some kind of slam on them to note that they are not in the production part of the business, yet you insist on taking it that way no matter how many times I state otherwise.

What a bunch of prima donnas.

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 11:46:04 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2013, 11:41:20 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 09:57:22 AM
How very lawyerly of you Malthus.

I never said (actually the word you used was "asserted"), for example, that lawyers were not involved in those decisions, I said they did not make those decisions. Those decisions are not driven by them - of course they have influence over them in some cases. So what? The janitor probably ahs influence over them as well, but we don't say the janitor produces anything either.

Not the same thing at all. Of course they are involved - so what? Everyone is "involved" or they would not be there. That doesn't make them producers.

:lol:

Yeah, thats why people pay lawyers hundreds of dollars an hour.  They are just good window dressing.  :lol:

You lawyers sure are sensitive.

No, its just funny to watch people who know nothing about what we do make pronouncements based on their perceptions. Yeah, being a commercial lawyer is just like being a ref. :rolleyes:  BB's job may come the closest because he is working for the crown which is kind of like the big ref for all society.  But that is about as far as your analogy can work.  The rest has already been explained to you and it is at least interesting to watch you ignore it.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2013, 11:50:00 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 11:46:04 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2013, 11:41:20 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 09:57:22 AM
How very lawyerly of you Malthus.

I never said (actually the word you used was "asserted"), for example, that lawyers were not involved in those decisions, I said they did not make those decisions. Those decisions are not driven by them - of course they have influence over them in some cases. So what? The janitor probably ahs influence over them as well, but we don't say the janitor produces anything either.

Not the same thing at all. Of course they are involved - so what? Everyone is "involved" or they would not be there. That doesn't make them producers.

:lol:

Yeah, thats why people pay lawyers hundreds of dollars an hour.  They are just good window dressing.  :lol:

You lawyers sure are sensitive.

No, its just funny to watch people who know nothing about what we do make pronouncements based on their perceptions.

I don't have to know anything about what you do except whether or not your produce something that is sold to say you produce nothing from the standpoint of the "production or cost" business division.

Quote
Yeah, being a commercial lawyer is just like being a ref. :rolleyes:

To the extent that it is division of the business that is a cost rather than a profit center, it is just like being a ref.

What is amusing is how I've used about a hundred examples of various business activities that are costs rather than profit centers, and you focus on one and dismiss it based on factors that have nothing to do with the analogy.

Its like saying apples are not like pears because apple starts with a, and pear starts with p, so how can you say they are both fruit?

Quote

BB's job may come the closest because he is working for the crown which is kind of like the big ref for all society.  But that is about as far as your analogy can work.  The rest has already been explained to you and it is at least interesting to watch you ignore it.

I ignore "the rest" because it has nothing to do with whether or not commercial lawyers are a cost or profit center.

What is really funny is the level of butt hurt you guys get at the thought that you don't produce something that the business sells.

It is the flip side to the falalcy the author makes - what is really funny is that you accept his fallacy so you can be all offended at his fallacious conclusion.

It is ok that your job is part of the cost of doing business, rather than the part of the business that directly produces profits. Most jobs are, in fact.

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!!!!!

Yep, lawyers.

All this arguing back and forth...I think you guys need a good lawyer to sort it all out. 

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 12:30:59 PM
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!!!!!

:lol:

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 12:11:32 PM
I don't have to know anything about what you do except whether or not your produce something that is sold to say you produce nothing from the standpoint of the "production or cost" business division.

Yeah, as already pointed out your lack of knowledge of what actually occurs drives you to the error of creating an overly narrow defintion.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2013, 12:56:35 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 12:11:32 PM
I don't have to know anything about what you do except whether or not your produce something that is sold to say you produce nothing from the standpoint of the "production or cost" business division.

Yeah, as already pointed out your lack of knowledge of what actually occurs drives you to the error of creating an overly narrow defintion.

It isn't my definition. I did not create it. It just is "the" definition of a cost center as opposed to a production or profit center. You have to tell us what occurs that would move commercial lawyering from the cost to the profit center.

Your inability to get out of your self centered arrogance drives you to create the error that everything revolves around you.

Quote from: KRonn on August 22, 2013, 12:50:36 PM
All this arguing back and forth...I think you guys need a good lawyer to sort it all out. 

Indeed.

Although it is hard to say, because apparently only lawyers can possibly even understand what it is that lawyers even do.

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 12:59:38 PM
You have to tell us what occurs that would move commercial lawyering from the cost to the profit center.

Being a lawfirm.

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 12:59:38 PM
Your inability to get out of your self centered arrogance drives you to create the error that everything revolves around you.

:lol:

You should not look in the mirror while posting.

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 01:03:32 PM

Quote from: KRonn on August 22, 2013, 12:50:36 PM
All this arguing back and forth...I think you guys need a good lawyer to sort it all out. 

Indeed.

Although it is hard to say, because apparently only lawyers can possibly even understand what it is that lawyers even do.

Except quite frequently I am quite befuddled as to what, exactly, defence lawyers are doing... <_<

Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2013, 01:11:10 PM
Except quite frequently I am quite befuddled as to what, exactly, defence lawyers are doing... <_<

Even after they've done it?

Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2013, 01:11:10 PM
Except quite frequently I am quite befuddled as to what, exactly, defence lawyers are doing... <_<

Make sure you do your work right.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 22, 2013, 01:13:08 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2013, 01:11:10 PM
Except quite frequently I am quite befuddled as to what, exactly, defence lawyers are doing... <_<

Even after they've done it?

Yes.

There are many who are quite good at what they're doing, and I know exactly what it is they are doing.  But I minority I can't help but think WTF did I just see???

Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2013, 08:47:01 AM
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.

Quote from: Zanza on August 22, 2013, 01:06:06 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 12:59:38 PM
You have to tell us what occurs that would move commercial lawyering from the cost to the profit center.

Being a lawfirm.

That would work, at least from the perspective of the law firm.

You would still be part of a cost center from the perspective of whomever you are doing the work for, of course.

Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2013, 01:14:44 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 22, 2013, 01:13:08 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2013, 01:11:10 PM
Except quite frequently I am quite befuddled as to what, exactly, defence lawyers are doing... <_<

Even after they've done it?

Yes.

There are many who are quite good at what they're doing, and I know exactly what it is they are doing.  But I minority I can't help but think WTF did I just see???

I could imagine being a defense lawyer could be pretty damn hard at times. I mean, as a prosecutory, your job is pretty straighforward in the broad strokes, and you know what you need to do to accomplish it.

Defense?

I suspect sometimes they have to be like "Fuck, this is hopeless. Lets just try some random shit and hope for the best..."

:P

Nah, then you are just a supplier. Cost and profit centers are only internal functions.

Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2013, 01:14:44 PM
Yes.

There are many who are quite good at what they're doing, and I know exactly what it is they are doing.  But I minority I can't help but think WTF did I just see???

I'm not clear whether you're referring to acts of wizardry or buffoonery.

Quote from: Zanza on August 22, 2013, 01:31:53 PM
Nah, then you are just a supplier. Cost and profit centers are only internal functions.

True, but the suppliers do fall into those same functions.

For example, a supplier who supplies parts to the manufacturing division that goes into the product is typically considered to be part of that profit center, even though they are not an internal division.

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 01:31:37 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2013, 01:14:44 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 22, 2013, 01:13:08 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2013, 01:11:10 PM
Except quite frequently I am quite befuddled as to what, exactly, defence lawyers are doing... <_<

Even after they've done it?

Yes.

There are many who are quite good at what they're doing, and I know exactly what it is they are doing.  But I minority I can't help but think WTF did I just see???

I could imagine being a defense lawyer could be pretty damn hard at times. I mean, as a prosecutory, your job is pretty straighforward in the broad strokes, and you know what you need to do to accomplish it.

Defense?

I suspect sometimes they have to be like "Fuck, this is hopeless. Lets just try some random shit and hope for the best..."

:P

But even where there is seemingly no hope, there is still a pretty standard game plan.  Cross examine the witnesses, zero in on any inconsistencies, no matter how minor, then argue the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Teach, I'm talking about buffoonery.

Quote from: Maximus on August 22, 2013, 01:22:19 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2013, 08:47:01 AM
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.  :)

Quote from: Maximus on August 22, 2013, 01:22:19 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2013, 08:47:01 AM
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Maximus on August 22, 2013, 01:22:19 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2013, 08:47:01 AM
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.

Actually, often times lawyers help business people to structure their affairs in much more efficient ways without there being anyone in opposition to them.  That is the bulk what what a lot of commercial lawyers do.

So you guys moonlight as business consultants?

Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2013, 02:03:11 PM
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.

Our GC is also an Executive VP and the Chief Administrative Officer. :)

Quote from: Caliga on August 22, 2013, 02:28:24 PM
Our GC is also an Executive VP and the Chief Administrative Officer. :)

Yeah, that is the trend.

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 01:51:59 PM

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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2013, 02:23:57 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2013, 02:03:11 PM
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.

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

Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2013, 03:11:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2013, 02:23:57 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2013, 02:03:11 PM
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.

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

Not suprising  :)

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2013, 03:26:01 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2013, 03:11:11 PM
:hmm: 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?

Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2013, 03:30:29 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2013, 03:26:01 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2013, 03:11:11 PM
:hmm: 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. :)

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 22, 2013, 01:59:16 PM
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.

Quote from: mongers on August 22, 2013, 01:42:38 PM

Quote from: Maximus on August 22, 2013, 01:22:19 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2013, 08:47:01 AM
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.  :lol:

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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2013, 02:23:57 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2013, 02:03:11 PM
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.  :D

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 12:30:59 PM
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.  :lol:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2013, 04:50:02 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on August 22, 2013, 05:08:27 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2013, 04:50:02 PM
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.  ;)

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

Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2013, 05:18:03 PM
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. :D

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.

That was very well said, Minsky.  It makes it very clear how lawyers manage to talk their way into siphoning off an ever larger cut of the economy.

Minksy: :cheers:
DGuller:  :lol:

Funny how I'm not in a moral quagmire over lawyers.  Shame they're not killed by more orcas.

Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2013, 04:49:43 PM
Unfortunately, it is totally incorrect.  :lol:

I'll file that one under assertion along with "nuh uh".

Joan:

My first point of contention is that you suggest the net value of an economy is exogenous, which it clearly is not.

My second disagreement is with your characterization of markets as incredibly complex etc. etc. Stripped of the nonessentials markets represent the ability to buy and sell freely, with the aim of maximizing their individual gain.

Capital earned a return during the Guilded Age because of the incredible productivity of mechanization, and because of unethical monopolistic activity.  Capital is earning a return now because of the incredible productivity of computerization, and because it can now be paired with a vastly greater pool of labor due to globalization.  The only logical ways to limit the power of capital vis a vis labor (or to be more accuate, vis a vis domestic labor) are to stifle productive investment and to erect barriers to the free flow of capital.

Quote from: Zanza on August 20, 2013, 10:08:55 AM
Language-related outsourcing in Germany can typically only be done near-shore to Eastern Europe as you'll just not find people that can speak or write German in other regions of the world. Doesn't make sense to find the ten Indians that speak German to open a call-center there.

Yeah, I can understand that.  Es war sehr überraschend wann meiner Chef sprichte mir Deutsch am ersten.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 22, 2013, 02:23:57 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 22, 2013, 02:03:11 PM
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've had to deal with some of these issues...arguing to the Court that my client's in-house counsel is not a "competitive decisionmaker" and so should be allowed access to confidential documents.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2013, 06:45:32 PM
My first point of contention is that you suggest the net value of an economy is exogenous, which it clearly is not.

Not my suggestion, not my intent.

QuoteMy second disagreement is with your characterization of markets as incredibly complex etc. etc. Stripped of the nonessentials markets represent the ability to buy and sell freely, with the aim of maximizing their individual gain.

You are confusing the metaphor with the reality.  What does it mean to sell or buy "freely" and what is being bought or sold?  Today I handed someone some green pieces of paper and got back another smaller piece of paper, which I then gave to a man on a train.  that was a free exchange in the sense of no over coercion was involved in the exhange but it begs the question of what exactly was exchanged and what gives that meaning.  Let's say I "buy a game on Steam" - what actually happens is that: (1) I send a message over some electronic wires, (2) follwoing that message, other messages are sent back and forth over electronic wires, (3) somewhere someone changes some numbers on a computer and someone else changes the same numbers in revese on another computer, (4) I get back an alphanumeric code.  If you wanted to give a proper description of exactly what is going on here and how this could possibly result in "individual gain" to both sides, it would take a treatise to describe this one simple $4.99 transaction. 

One can dismiss all this as plumbing, but without the plumbing, it gets smelly very fast.  "Stripped of the non-essentials," toilets dont actually flush.  Stripped on the non-essentials, "markets" don't exist because there is no basis for the exchange to happen.

QuoteCapital earned a return during the Guilded Age because of the incredible productivity of mechanization, and because of unethical monopolistic activity.  Capital is earning a return now because of the incredible productivity of computerization, and because it can now be paired with a vastly greater pool of labor due to globalization.  The only logical ways to limit the power of capital vis a vis labor (or to be more accuate, vis a vis domestic labor) are to stifle productive investment and to erect barriers to the free flow of capital.

that's a pretty big oversimplification.  Capital didn't earn a return per se (and doesn't).  Some captialists do and some do less.  One characteristic of the Gilded Age is that certain particular kinds of capitalists were able to leverage relatively small amounts of capital into very large amounts of economic control.  Not just because of lack of monopoly rules, although that played a role.  But also because people like JPMorgan were able to exploit and shape the rules of norms of the systems of company finance, of credit and monetary control.  The same is true now but the means are more complex and subtle.  Providers of credit still exploit their quasi-public function to limit potential loss without constraining their unlimited potential gain, and exploit their superior knowledge of the credit and monetary system to tilt the rules of the game in their favor.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2013, 07:11:27 PM
Not my suggestion, not my intent.

I didn't think so, but I hope you can see how some of your cheering section might be cheering for the wrong reasons.

QuoteYou are confusing the metaphor with the reality.  What does it mean to sell or buy "freely" and what is being bought or sold?  Today I handed someone some green pieces of paper and got back another smaller piece of paper, which I then gave to a man on a train.  that was a free exchange in the sense of no over coercion was involved in the exhange but it begs the question of what exactly was exchanged and what gives that meaning.  Let's say I "buy a game on Steam" - what actually happens is that: (1) I send a message over some electronic wires, (2) follwoing that message, other messages are sent back and forth over electronic wires, (3) somewhere someone changes some numbers on a computer and someone else changes the same numbers in revese on another computer, (4) I get back an alphanumeric code.  If you wanted to give a proper description of exactly what is going on here and how this could possibly result in "individual gain" to both sides, it would take a treatise to describe this one simple $4.99 transaction. 

One can dismiss all this as plumbing, but without the plumbing, it gets smelly very fast.  "Stripped of the non-essentials," toilets dont actually flush.  Stripped on the non-essentials, "markets" don't exist because there is no basis for the exchange to happen.

A toilet stripped of its non-essentials is still the open end of a sewage system (cribbed from Kundera).  Your transaction stripped of its non-essentials is still Steam freely offering a game for sale and you freely accepting the offer.  The fact that the transaction was performed over the computer doesn't change that.

Quotethat's a pretty big oversimplification.  Capital didn't earn a return per se (and doesn't).  Some captialists do and some do less.  One characteristic of the Gilded Age is that certain particular kinds of capitalists were able to leverage relatively small amounts of capital into very large amounts of economic control.  Not just because of lack of monopoly rules, although that played a role.  But also because people like JPMorgan were able to exploit and shape the rules of norms of the systems of company finance, of credit and monetary control.  The same is true now but the means are more complex and subtle.  Providers of credit still exploit their quasi-public function to limit potential loss without constraining their unlimited potential gain, and exploit their superior knowledge of the credit and monetary system to tilt the rules of the game in their favor.

The potential loss of a quasi-public provider of credit is exactly the same as it was in the days before deposit insurance: their entire stake.  And you know better than I do that the retail banking market is hyper-competitive and margins are thin.

I will give you credit for one thing however: you didn't go so far as to argue causation from Gilded Age income inequality to the Great Depression.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2013, 04:50:02 PM
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.

What is bizarre is that no matter how many times I say I don't think it is significant, someone keeps demanding to know why it is significant.

Well, once they stop arguing that the distinction  doesn't even exist.

Quote from: Ideologue on August 19, 2013, 01:53:25 PM
Also I don't know where he gets the idea that nurses are 1)poorly paid (maybe they are under the NHS?) or 2)would have strategic effects on the economy if they all struck tomorrow.  Nurses are not a link in some kind of goods chain that would break without them.

Starting salary for a nurse is around £20 000. If they head towards quite senior matron positions (running a ward) then they can earn a very good wage of £60-70 000.

Nurses are seen as national saints in this country - see their starring role in the Olympics opening ceremony.

QuoteI will give you credit for one thing however: you didn't go so far as to argue causation from Gilded Age income inequality to the Great Depression.

Who does? :blink:

I thought this was interesting from an Economist blogger:

QuoteOn "bullshit jobs"
Aug 21st 2013, 12:59 by R.A. | LONDON

ANTHROPOLOGIST David Graeber has written an amusing essay on the nature of work in a modern economy, which seems to involve lots of people doing meaningless tasks they hate:
In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century's end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There's every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn't happen. Instead, technology has been marshalled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.

It is not the case, he writes, that people have to keep working to produce the consumer goods for which the rich world hungers. Outrageously, meaningless employment—in what he calls "bullshit jobs"—is concentrated in "professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers":
In other words, productive jobs have, just as predicted, been largely automated away (even if you count industrial workers globally, including the toiling masses in India and China, such workers are still not nearly so large a percentage of the world population as they used to be).But rather than allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world's population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas, we have seen the ballooning not even so much of the "service" sector as of the administrative sector...

Why in the world would firms spend extraordinary amounts of money employing people to do worthless tasks (especially when they've shown themselves to be exceedingly good at not employing people to do worthless tasks)? Says Mr Graeber:
The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the '60s).

I am immediately bursting with questions. Such as, should we conclude that protesters around the world—in Brazil, India, North Africa, Turkey—are in fact too happy? How does the ruling class co-ordinate all this hiring, and if much of the economy's employment is useless in the first place why not just keep them on during recessions?

But there is actually an important point here. The place to start is to recognise that, romance aside, many of the industrial jobs that have been automated away were incredibly tedious and unpleasant for those doing them. The development of assembly line processes contributed to rising worker wages in part because of increased productivity...but also because employers were tired of training workers only to lose them once they realised they'd be affixing Tab A to Frame B, repeatedly, all day long.

Employers had to retain such workers—had to pay them a wage sufficient to keep them on the job despite its dreadful tedium—because the machines of the era lacked the manual dexterity to complete the required tasks, and so a line of human machines was the only way to make the highly productive assembly-line system work. As technology evolved, however, automating routine tasks became ever easier. And the high wages needed to compensate labourers for the soul-crushing repetitiveness of their work gave employers every incentive to automate routine tasks as soon as it was technically feasible.

Perhaps you see where this is going.

As technology has improved, it has become ever easier to dispense with human labour in mechanical processes. There are still jobs where a very high level of physical dexterity and task flexibility is needed—in construction, for example, or janitorial work—and people continue to do those jobs. But it is not surprising that employment growth has shifted elsewhere. And administrative jobs are the modern equivalent of the industrial line worker.

Over the past century the world economy has grown increasingly complex. The goods being provided are more complex; the supply chains used to build them are more complex; the systems to market, sell and distribute them are more complex; the means to finance it all is more complex; and so on. This complexity is what makes us rich. But it is an enormous pain to manage. I'd say that one way to manage it all would be through teams of generalists—craftsman managers who mind the system from the design stage right through to the customer service calls—but there is no way such complexity would be economically workable in that world (just as cheap, ubiquitous automobiles would have been impossible in a world where teams of generalist mechanics produced cars one at a time).

No, the efficient way to do things is to break businesses up into many different kinds of tasks, allowing for a very high level of specialisation. And so you end up with the clerical equivalent of repeatedly affixing Tab A to Frame B: shuffling papers, management of the minutiae of supply chains, and so on. Disaggregation may make it look meaningless, since many workers end up doing things incredibly far removed from the end points of the process; the days when the iron ore goes in one door and the car rolls out the other are over. But the idea is the same.

One question is why today's workers aren't rewarded with high wages for their suffering. And one possible answer is that, well, they are. Real wages for today's clerical workers are far higher than they were for manufacturing workers a century ago, and the work, for all its tedium, probably isn't nearly as unpleasant. Administrative workers get to sit down in climate-controlled offices, tweeting and playing fantasy football on their desktop when time allows. If firms had to pay more to get a body in the deskchair, they would.

Technology continues to improve, however. Just as robots became ever better at various manual tasks over the past century—and were therefore able to replace human labour in a growing array of jobs, beginning with the most routine—computer control systems are able to handle ever more of the work done by human administrative workers. Jobs from truck driver to legal aid to medical diagnostician to customer service technician will soon be threatened by machines. Starting with the most routine tasks. Human labour will not be eliminated entirely from these sectors. Jobs that require a particularly high level of task flexibility, or creativity, or empathy may continue to employ people (for a while). Yet most office jobs will eventually go the way of the dodo.

And at that point advanced economies may find it necessary to address what is really the central complaint in Mr Graeber's essay. The issue is not that jobs used to have meaning and now they don't; most jobs in most periods have undoubtedly been staffed by people who would prefer to be doing something else. The issue is that too little of the recent gains from technological advance and economic growth have gone toward giving people the time and resources to enjoy their lives outside work. Early in the industrial era real wages soared and hours worked declined. In the past generation, by contrast, real wages have grown slowly and workweeks haven't grown shorter.

The development of large-scale technological unemployment or underemployment, however, would force rich societies to revisit a system that primarily allocates purchasing power via earned wages. And that, in turn, could allow households to get by or even thrive while working many fewer hours than is now typically the case—albeit through a pretty hefty level of income redistribution. They would then be free to write poetry or tutor disadvantaged children, though we shouldn't be surprised if most use their new leisure to spend more time with a beloved video game.

We can't be certain that the robots are coming for all our jobs. Disemployment in administrative jobs could create new, and perhaps highly remunerative, work in sectors or occupations we can't yet anticipate. If we're lucky, that work will be engaging and meaningful. Yet there is a decent chance that "bullshit" administrative jobs are merely a halfway house between "bullshit" industrial jobs and no jobs at all. Not because of the conniving of rich interests, but because machines inevitably outmatch humans at handling bullshit without complaining.

For lawyers I imagine software's already had an impact and, for example, conveyancing seems particularly at risk to a cheaper electronic system emerging for most cases. In this country I think around 20% of lawyers mainly do conveyancing work and I imagine the bulk is in simple domestic purchases. So if it happened it would have a huge impact on that part of the administrative economy.

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 07:51:32 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2013, 04:50:02 PM
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.

What is bizarre is that no matter how many times I say I don't think it is significant, someone keeps demanding to know why it is significant.

Well, once they stop arguing that the distinction  doesn't even exist.

Yeah I got agree Berk that it is odd that Malthus keeps asking why you think the distinction is important when you are just pointing out that it exists.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2013, 08:28:16 PM
Who does? :blink:

Piles have people have tried to imply it without hanging their balls out on a disprovable thesis.

"The last time income inequality was this high was right before the Great Depression, and we all know how that turned out."  Or words to that effect.

I have a vague recollection that DGuller tried to sustain the argument at the time that inequality contributed to Teh Great Recession.

Quote from: JoanThe key question is not who produces and who is parasitical - in that sense the OP goes badly awry.

I don't think I meant to imply lawyers were parasitical, Joan.  Perhaps I did, if so, I retract it.

I implied discovery work was, but as CC said I overestimated its significance to the legal industry.

QuoteWhere 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.

:)

Quote from: Shaunsee their starring role in the Olympics opening ceremony.

I will absolutely not. :angry:

QuoteDisemployment in administrative jobs could create new, and perhaps highly remunerative, work in sectors or occupations we can't yet anticipate.

Nope.

Quote from: YiI have a vague recollection that DGuller tried to sustain the argument at the time that inequality contributed to Teh Great Recession.

That's an increasingly common view I believe.  Inequality papered over by unsustainable private debt--> credit crunch--> deleveraging event--> collapse of aggregate demand.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2013, 08:35:56 PM
I have a vague recollection that DGuller tried to sustain the argument at the time that inequality contributed to Teh Great Recession.

I did try to sustain that argument in the past.  I changed my mind since then, I'm no longer interested in having these debates.

Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2013, 08:34:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 07:51:32 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2013, 04:50:02 PM
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.

What is bizarre is that no matter how many times I say I don't think it is significant, someone keeps demanding to know why it is significant.

Well, once they stop arguing that the distinction  doesn't even exist.

Yeah I got agree Berk that it is odd that Malthus keeps asking why you think the distinction is important when you are just pointing out that it exists.

I guess Minsky and I are interchangeable Jewish lawyers?  :hmm:

Point here is, if you guys don't think the distinction "is significant" in any way, why are you making such a big fuss and deal about it? Are you really that fond of arguing over ... nothing?

To my mind, it surely raises the question of why Berk sought fit to make the argument.

This argument needs more grumbler.

Quote from: Maximus on August 22, 2013, 06:32:52 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2013, 04:49:43 PM
Unfortunately, it is totally incorrect.  :lol:

I'll file that one under assertion along with "nuh uh".

Okay, then I'll add some substance to my jeering.  ;)

Lawyers do not guard against the hazards created by other lawyers. They guard against the hazards created by other people, such as those whom the client is doing business with either voluntarily (as in contracts) or involuntarily (as in someone doing them an injury).

The notion that these hazards are dreamed up by lawyers and would not exist except for lawyers is, quite simply, bullshit that could only appeal to the childish mind who thinks that human nature is all fluffy kittens and unicorns farting rainbows.  :P

Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2013, 08:18:12 AM

Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2013, 08:34:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 07:51:32 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2013, 04:50:02 PM
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.

What is bizarre is that no matter how many times I say I don't think it is significant, someone keeps demanding to know why it is significant.

Well, once they stop arguing that the distinction  doesn't even exist.

Yeah I got agree Berk that it is odd that Malthus keeps asking why you think the distinction is important when you are just pointing out that it exists.

I guess Minsky and I are interchangeable Jewish lawyers?  :hmm:

Point here is, if you guys don't think the distinction "is significant" in any way, why are you making such a big fuss and deal about it? Are you really that fond of arguing over ... nothing?

To my mind, it surely raises the question of why Berk sought fit to make the argument.

You aren't reading my posts. You are just reading the posts you imagine me making.

The entire jist of my argument, if you take two seconds to actually read what I've written in total instead of trying to pick out bits and pieces to get all offended about, is to AGREE that the distinction in the context it is being used by the OP is bullshit.

I agree that it is beyond bizarre that anyone would be so sensitive about their position that pointing out that their business is not part of the production part of a business would result in them getting all butt hurt and going on for pages about how nobody understands what they do (really, we do) and if they did, we would all agree that they are really super awesomely important (no, we probably won't).

But hey, it's Languish, so it isn't surprising.

Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2013, 08:25:47 AM

Quote from: Maximus on August 22, 2013, 06:32:52 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2013, 04:49:43 PM
Unfortunately, it is totally incorrect.  :lol:

I'll file that one under assertion along with "nuh uh".

Okay, then I'll add some substance to my jeering.  ;)

Lawyers do not guard against the hazards created by other lawyers. They guard against the hazards created by other people, such as those whom the client is doing business with either voluntarily (as in contracts) or involuntarily (as in someone doing them an injury).

The notion that these hazards are dreamed up by lawyers and would not exist except for lawyers is, quite simply, bullshit that could only appeal to the childish mind who thinks that human nature is all fluffy kittens and unicorns farting rainbows.  :P

The notion that the lawyers, all 6 bajillion of them, do not contribute to the need for more lawyers, is so cutely naive that I don't even believe that you believe it.

Fallacy of over simplification.

Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2013, 09:04:03 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2013, 08:18:12 AM

Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2013, 08:34:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 07:51:32 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2013, 04:50:02 PM
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.

What is bizarre is that no matter how many times I say I don't think it is significant, someone keeps demanding to know why it is significant.

Well, once they stop arguing that the distinction  doesn't even exist.

Yeah I got agree Berk that it is odd that Malthus keeps asking why you think the distinction is important when you are just pointing out that it exists.

I guess Minsky and I are interchangeable Jewish lawyers?  :hmm:

Point here is, if you guys don't think the distinction "is significant" in any way, why are you making such a big fuss and deal about it? Are you really that fond of arguing over ... nothing?

To my mind, it surely raises the question of why Berk sought fit to make the argument.

You aren't reading my posts. You are just reading the posts you imagine me making.

The entire jist of my argument, if you take two seconds to actually read what I've written in total instead of trying to pick out bits and pieces to get all offended about, is to AGREE that the distinction in the context it is being used by the OP is bullshit.

I agree that it is beyond bizarre that anyone would be so sensitive about their position that pointing out that their business is not part of the production part of a business would result in them getting all butt hurt and going on for pages about how nobody understands what they do (really, we do) and if they did, we would all agree that they are really super awesomely important (no, we probably won't).

But hey, it's Languish, so it isn't surprising.

So I take it that someone other than Berkut wrote this?  :hmm:

QuoteThey 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.

Now your position is that nope, no, really, the distinction between production and non-production has no significance in any way ?

Colour me confused as to WTF your point is. How does your present position jibe with saying they are a "necessary evil",  "a cost that adds nothing to the bottom line", and something you would be "better off ... getting rid of altogether"?

I say, have the courage of your convictions. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2013, 07:28:13 PM
Your transaction stripped of its non-essentials is still Steam freely offering a game for sale and you freely accepting the offer.  The fact that the transaction was performed over the computer doesn't change that.

But Steam is not "freely offering a game for sale".  It is providing an electronic distribution service to a customer under specified terms and conditions on the one hand, and another distribution service to the game company also under specified (but different) terms and conditions.  And what is being sold is not a game but a software license.

The point is for all this to work, there has to be a lot going on behind the scenes.  I am not talking about the technological capabilities of the computer.  I am talking about having a system of well-tested rules and enforcement mechanisms in place such that all parties to these transactions can act with confidence that they will get what they are transacting for and won't get ripped off.  And a culture that that has become so accilimated to those norms that 99.99% of the time, everything will go smoothly -- because if more than a minute proportion of transactions actually required the invocation of formal enforcement mechanisms, the system would collapse.

These are not non-essentials.  They ARE the essentials, they are what it means to have a "market".  Absent that, the Steam customer would not only have to read very carefully all the fine print of the terms and conditions, he would have to do his own due diligence into the bona fides of the company and its ability and willingness to make good on its obligation, and have on retainer some beefy guys named Vinny in case things went awry.  Which means it wouldn't happen at all.

QuoteThe potential loss of a quasi-public provider of credit is exactly the same as it was in the days before deposit insurance: their entire stake. 

What stake?  Most of the equity is dumped onto the public, either directly or through intermediaries like pension funds.  The only thing managers and directors stand to lose is the value of whatever restricted stock awards that haven't vested or where the sale window hasn't opened.   

The Wal-Mart guard isn't actively destroying society.

My position is completely consistent with those comments. But keep cherry picking out the pieces so you can feel justifiably outraged that someone might suggest your job is just like so many other jobs, and not super duper special.

I never said it "had not significance in any way", counselor. I said it wasn't significant in the manner the OP claimed it was, and now in the manner you are insisting that it must be, so you can feel all sad and unappreciated.

It jibes because cost cetners in general are "necessary evils" that "ideally you would not need them at all". The comment about the bottom line is actually not really accurate as stated, since cost centers do add to the bottom line, just not directly (or at least, hopefully they do).

If you could come up with a way to make sure people don't steal your product, you could get rid of security guards and make more money since they are a cost. Hence they are a "necessary evil". The same is true of lawyers. I know that hurts you, and makes you sad, but that is just the definition of what a cost of business is. Why this makes you all raging and emo is really quite amusing. Your ego is both over inflated and mighty tender at the same time.

I am perfectly ok with the FACT that from the perspective of my clients, I am a cost to them, and if they could come up with a way to originate loans without the need for software that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, they would be better off, they would make more money. Of course, I also know that the reality is that we actually save them piles of cash, so that is largely theoretical. But my ego is hardly tied up in recognizing that there is such a distinction, that I fall on a particular side of the distinction or that in theory, my job is a necessary evil. All from the perspective of the client, of course - from the perspective of the company *I* work for, I am very much at the pointy end of the profit center stick.

The most interesting part of this debate by far is how sensitive some of our corporate lawyers are to the basic idea that their job is just another cost of business, and they aren't actually some super special flower. I had no idea comparing them to a security guard would strike such a nerve. :P

Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2013, 09:38:50 AM
The most interesting part of this debate by far is how sensitive some of our corporate lawyers are to the basic idea that their job is just another cost of business, and they aren't actually some super special flower.

Actually, the most interesting part is watching the lawyers dissect the discussion with all the proficiency of, well, lawyers.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2013, 09:58:08 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2013, 09:38:50 AM
The most interesting part of this debate by far is how sensitive some of our corporate lawyers are to the basic idea that their job is just another cost of business, and they aren't actually some super special flower.

Actually, the most interesting part is watching the lawyers dissect the discussion with all the proficiency of, well, lawyers.

Their powers can be used for good or evil.

At least in theory.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2013, 08:19:40 AM
This argument needs more grumbler.

Naw, Berkut has now admitted he is arguing over nothing so he is an adequate stand in.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2013, 10:03:42 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2013, 08:19:40 AM
This argument needs more grumbler.

Naw, Berkut has now admitted he is arguing over nothing so he is an adequate stand in.

I dunno...while Hurricane Berkut often has a tendency to batter a thread shoreline with repeated high-intensity posts whenever it makes landfall, as far as this thread is concerned, discussing shit with you lawyer types is the effective equivalent of talking to a therapist about not being depressed only to be told you're in denial.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2013, 10:08:13 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2013, 10:03:42 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2013, 08:19:40 AM
This argument needs more grumbler.

Naw, Berkut has now admitted he is arguing over nothing so he is an adequate stand in.

I dunno...while Hurricane Berkut often has a tendency to batter a thread shoreline with repeated high-intensity posts whenever it makes landfall, as far as this thread is concerned, discussing shit with you lawyer types is the effective equivalent of talking to a therapist about not being depressed only to be told you're in denial.

:lol:

Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2013, 09:38:50 AM
My position is completely consistent with those comments. But keep cherry picking out the pieces so you can feel justifiably outraged that someone might suggest your job is just like so many other jobs, and not super duper special.

I never said it "had not significance in any way", counselor. I said it wasn't significant in the manner the OP claimed it was, and now in the manner you are insisting that it must be, so you can feel all sad and unappreciated.

It jibes because cost cetners in general are "necessary evils" that "ideally you would not need them at all". The comment about the bottom line is actually not really accurate as stated, since cost centers do add to the bottom line, just not directly (or at least, hopefully they do).

If you could come up with a way to make sure people don't steal your product, you could get rid of security guards and make more money since they are a cost. Hence they are a "necessary evil". The same is true of lawyers. I know that hurts you, and makes you sad, but that is just the definition of what a cost of business is. Why this makes you all raging and emo is really quite amusing. Your ego is both over inflated and mighty tender at the same time.

I am perfectly ok with the FACT that from the perspective of my clients, I am a cost to them, and if they could come up with a way to originate loans without the need for software that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, they would be better off, they would make more money. Of course, I also know that the reality is that we actually save them piles of cash, so that is largely theoretical. But my ego is hardly tied up in recognizing that there is such a distinction, that I fall on a particular side of the distinction or that in theory, my job is a necessary evil. All from the perspective of the client, of course - from the perspective of the company *I* work for, I am very much at the pointy end of the profit center stick.

The most interesting part of this debate by far is how sensitive some of our corporate lawyers are to the basic idea that their job is just another cost of business, and they aren't actually some super special flower. I had no idea comparing them to a security guard would strike such a nerve. :P

The most interesting part of this debate is to watch you tie yourself into knots trying to explain why you are debating over what you have admitted to be nothing.  :P

But please, keep beating that drum over how those simply asking you WTF you are going on about are "emo" for having the temerity to ask what you mean. No doubt if you *say* it enough times, it will become true.  :hmm:

Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2013, 09:05:43 AM

Quote from: Malthus on August 23, 2013, 08:25:47 AM

Quote from: Maximus on August 22, 2013, 06:32:52 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 22, 2013, 04:49:43 PM
Unfortunately, it is totally incorrect.  :lol:

I'll file that one under assertion along with "nuh uh".

Okay, then I'll add some substance to my jeering.  ;)

Lawyers do not guard against the hazards created by other lawyers. They guard against the hazards created by other people, such as those whom the client is doing business with either voluntarily (as in contracts) or involuntarily (as in someone doing them an injury).

The notion that these hazards are dreamed up by lawyers and would not exist except for lawyers is, quite simply, bullshit that could only appeal to the childish mind who thinks that human nature is all fluffy kittens and unicorns farting rainbows.  :P

The notion that the lawyers, all 6 bajillion of them, do not contribute to the need for more lawyers, is so cutely naive that I don't even believe that you believe it.

Fallacy of over simplification.

... which, in your mind, did not apply to the post I was responding to? Interesting.  :hmm:

Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2013, 09:04:03 AM
You aren't reading my posts. You are just reading the posts you imagine me making.

:shutup:

Joan, your discussion of the complexities of transactions in the modern age is very interesting, but what exactly is it's purpose?  You were discussing mechanisms to divide the net value pie.  What does this have to do with that?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2013, 02:25:51 PM
Joan, your discussion of the complexities of transactions in the modern age is very interesting, but what exactly is it's purpose?  You were discussing mechanisms to divide the net value pie.  What does this have to do with that?

The complexities of transactions in the modern age is, in large part, the mechanism that divides the net value pie?

How so?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2013, 02:25:51 PM
Joan, your discussion of the complexities of transactions in the modern age is very interesting, but what exactly is it's purpose? 

Responding to the argument made in the initial post.

QuoteYou were discussing mechanisms to divide the net value pie. 

There is no mechanism per se.  At any given time there are endowments and wealth and ability, and there are rules that govern how people engage in production and consumption.  With those as givens, people interact with each other and what results - whether by design, random luck, or some combination of both -  is some new distribution of wealth and income.  Economics doesn't really have much to say about about that distributional result in a macro sense.  The best that can be said if one buys the Arrow-debreu axioms is that the government can't intervene in a way that makes everyone better off by mucking around with prices.  Economic theory can also suggest what kinds of distributional changes might be more or less efficient than others.  Beyond that there really isn't much to say.  And since there is nothing "natural" or presumptively just about the pre-existing endowments or social rules, there is no reason to accord the resulting outcomes any special deference.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2013, 02:39:11 PM
How so?

What Keynes said.

Of course there's no reason to award the market mechanism any special deference.  We're not talking about a clan talisman here, we're talking about a set of rules.  And the logical thing to do is to evaluate that set of rules in terms of its advantages and disadvantages compared to its alternatives.  That is the point I thought you were raising, and that is why I was puzzled by the relevance of the technical and legal complexity of your purchase of a game from Steam.