One thing that bugged me about Idiocracy

[Psychic Robot]

Yeah, it's horrible, they get enough money to barely feed them. Those bastards, living off the dole, eating their really crappy food, and wearing their hand me downs.

Going to their inner city schools of lose.

Kids should suffer.

We should punish them for having more kids
We should also make abortions illegal
And Condoms are bad
Medical Assitance should not pay for birth control pills either.

Bastards having children so they can get an extra $100 a week.

your argument is not logical

[Vnonymous]

http://financialedge.investopedia.com/f ... thing.aspx

Nothing good ever comes out of people on Welfare.

You're right, the world would be much better off without Jay-Z, Celine Dion and Shania Twain being famous.

[Neeeek]

Heck, right now most recent law school graduates have passed the bar and are still unemployed.

Good ... they should get together and undercut the Laffey Matrix to get cases. The fees are fucking ridiculous, they need to come down.

This is hilarious.
[quote="A lawyer]Because they lack the financial resources to compete with the Boutique Law Firm’s rates, existing small and medium sized law firms must try to cut prices in other ways. In such a scenario, the legal community may soon fall victim to a situation in which existing law firms are pitted against one another in an attempt to provide the lowest possible rates for clients.

This is how lawyers really think ... of course without trying to unite it with their usual neoliberal stance on economics. Humans are all good at rationalization ... but lawyers better than most.

It reminds me of investment bankers, somehow their ability to make negligible impact on the real economy makes them think the economy couldn't run without them (in the case of investment bankers shaving a couple of points off interest on loans through arbitrage). With lawyers ... well I don't really know how they justify their fees to themselves, but a hugely inflated sense of self importance nonetheless.

Inevitably, many existing firms may be forced out of business, being unable to maintain a profitable enterprise.

Yes, I'm sure all the lawyers who grew fat on inflated fees will just go into retirement rather than work for lower fees ... so what? Plenty more where those came from.[/quote]

You obviously have no idea how a law firm works or any idea of the costs involved. Seriously, lawyers are often underpaid, and do more work at below-cost prices (or just for free) than any other profession, and it's not a close thing.

[PoliteNewb]

Heck, right now most recent law school graduates have passed the bar and are still unemployed.

Good ... they should get together and undercut the Laffey Matrix to get cases. The fees are fucking ridiculous, they need to come down.

This is hilarious.
[quote="A lawyer]Because they lack the financial resources to compete with the Boutique Law Firm’s rates, existing small and medium sized law firms must try to cut prices in other ways. In such a scenario, the legal community may soon fall victim to a situation in which existing law firms are pitted against one another in an attempt to provide the lowest possible rates for clients.

This is how lawyers really think ... of course without trying to unite it with their usual neoliberal stance on economics. Humans are all good at rationalization ... but lawyers better than most.

It reminds me of investment bankers, somehow their ability to make negligible impact on the real economy makes them think the economy couldn't run without them (in the case of investment bankers shaving a couple of points off interest on loans through arbitrage). With lawyers ... well I don't really know how they justify their fees to themselves, but a hugely inflated sense of self importance nonetheless.

Inevitably, many existing firms may be forced out of business, being unable to maintain a profitable enterprise.

Yes, I'm sure all the lawyers who grew fat on inflated fees will just go into retirement rather than work for lower fees ... so what? Plenty more where those came from.

You obviously have no idea how a law firm works or any idea of the costs involved. Seriously, lawyers are often underpaid, and do more work at below-cost prices (or just for free) than any other profession, and it's not a close thing.[/quote]

I'll admit I have no idea how a law firm works, aside from what I read in John Grisham novels, but this sounds like a serious "citation needed". Is this a case of a bunch of underpaid lawyers (like public defenders and such) being averaged with a smaller number of very wealthy lawyers?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Good ... they should get together and undercut the Laffey Matrix to get cases. The fees are fucking ridiculous, they need to come down.

This is hilarious.
[quote="A lawyer]Because they lack the financial resources to compete with the Boutique Law Firm’s rates, existing small and medium sized law firms must try to cut prices in other ways. In such a scenario, the legal community may soon fall victim to a situation in which existing law firms are pitted against one another in an attempt to provide the lowest possible rates for clients.

This is how lawyers really think ... of course without trying to unite it with their usual neoliberal stance on economics. Humans are all good at rationalization ... but lawyers better than most.

It reminds me of investment bankers, somehow their ability to make negligible impact on the real economy makes them think the economy couldn't run without them (in the case of investment bankers shaving a couple of points off interest on loans through arbitrage). With lawyers ... well I don't really know how they justify their fees to themselves, but a hugely inflated sense of self importance nonetheless.

Inevitably, many existing firms may be forced out of business, being unable to maintain a profitable enterprise.

Yes, I'm sure all the lawyers who grew fat on inflated fees will just go into retirement rather than work for lower fees ... so what? Plenty more where those came from.

You obviously have no idea how a law firm works or any idea of the costs involved. Seriously, lawyers are often underpaid, and do more work at below-cost prices (or just for free) than any other profession, and it's not a close thing.

I'll admit I have no idea how a law firm works, aside from what I read in John Grisham novels, but this sounds like a serious "citation needed". Is this a case of a bunch of underpaid lawyers (like public defenders and such) being averaged with a smaller number of very wealthy lawyers?[/quote]

That would make sense. That's why I live in a country where the median income is around 56k a year and the wealthiest person I know personally makes less than half of that.

[Lago PARANOIA]

1) More than 50% of people who receive welfare get it for less than two years in their life. 75% top out at 5 years.

2) The argument that AFDC or whatever encourages people to have extra children is odd; only a hardcore moron would think that this is a financial incentive, as the program simply doesn't hand out enough money to raise multiple children. Simple mathematics shows that each additional kid only makes it harder to make ends meet.

3) This whole thing reeks of 'deserving poor' versus 'undeserving poor', which is a cast to the debate that I always found intensely creepy.

[Maj]

As a person who's needed TANF in the last couple of years, I can tell you that a family of three qualifies for $562 per month. Which doesn't pay our rent. And being on it sucks ass.

[Neeeek]

I'll admit I have no idea how a law firm works, aside from what I read in John Grisham novels, but this sounds like a serious "citation needed". Is this a case of a bunch of underpaid lawyers (like public defenders and such) being averaged with a smaller number of very wealthy lawyers?

There are a bunch of different factors. The big one that most people are apparently unaware of is the cost of legal research. If a lawyer spends an hour doing research for a case, the cost of the materials being researched is likely more than $100, so if they charge $200 an hour, they are probably losing money when you take into account all the expenses (rent, various office equipment/furniture, malpractice insurance, court costs, filing costs, administrative costs, expert witness costs, costs from cases that don't pan out if they work on contingency, costs from pro bono cases). And that doesn't even get into the delays that go into receiving payment in a lot of cases when they go on appeal.

Then you need to account for the fact that lawyers typically graduate law school owing huge amounts in student loans. When your first $2000 per month go straight to paying off loans, you need to have a pretty high income just to afford to pay rent and eat.

The lawyers who have the steadiest pay checks, and make a lot of money, are typically corporate in-house counsel and tax attorneys (and if you have passed the bar and have a CPA license, you deserve to be paid like crazy) though senior partners in major law firms usually make more. Government lawyers (and there are a lot of government lawyers) make a decent amount of money (as does any government employee with a 3 year post-graduate degree, as the government determines pay scale partly through education). Public interest lawyers are paid very little, and manage to pay their bills through income-based repayment plans for their loans.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Makes perfect sense. My ex was a doctor, and she owed so much not only from student loans but also with the expenses of running her business that her income was negative every month for all purposes.

[PoliteNewb]

I'll admit I have no idea how a law firm works, aside from what I read in John Grisham novels, but this sounds like a serious "citation needed". Is this a case of a bunch of underpaid lawyers (like public defenders and such) being averaged with a smaller number of very wealthy lawyers?

There are a bunch of different factors. The big one that most people are apparently unaware of is the cost of legal research. If a lawyer spends an hour doing research for a case, the cost of the materials being researched is likely more than $100, so if they charge $200 an hour, they are probably losing money when you take into account all the expenses (rent, various office equipment/furniture, malpractice insurance, court costs, filing costs, administrative costs, expert witness costs, costs from cases that don't pan out if they work on contingency, costs from pro bono cases). And that doesn't even get into the delays that go into receiving payment in a lot of cases when they go on appeal.

Then you need to account for the fact that lawyers typically graduate law school owing huge amounts in student loans. When your first $2000 per month go straight to paying off loans, you need to have a pretty high income just to afford to pay rent and eat.

The lawyers who have the steadiest pay checks, and make a lot of money, are typically corporate in-house counsel and tax attorneys (and if you have passed the bar and have a CPA license, you deserve to be paid like crazy) though senior partners in major law firms usually make more. Government lawyers (and there are a lot of government lawyers) make a decent amount of money (as does any government employee with a 3 year post-graduate degree, as the government determines pay scale partly through education). Public interest lawyers are paid very little, and manage to pay their bills through income-based repayment plans for their loans.

I don't mean to be rude, but that was not a citation. I was hoping for some links to actual proof regarding the claims that a.) lawyers are frequently underpaid (for which I'll need a definition of "underpaid", as well) and b.) that lawyers do WAY more work at 'below-cost' than other professions (you said "not even close"). Studies, analyses, something along those lines? Some data I can look at, not just a statement of "this is how it is".

How about stats for how many lawyers who work full-time are struggling to pay the bills?

Also, as regards this:

as does any government employee with a 3 year post-graduate degree, as the government determines pay scale partly through education

This is not true for all government jobs (though perhaps you meant Federal?). I work for the State of Alaska, and my pay has fuck-all to do with my degree...salaries are based on union scales, which are set by job class and seniority (time in grade, more or less). Nor would I say I am particularly well-paid...I took home a touch over 42K last year, which is not chicken feed, but it is also not all that great considering the cost of living in Alaska.

[Surgo]

I don't mean to be rude, but that was not a citation.

Neeeek is a lawyer. He is a primary source for things within the law profession.

[Zherog]

http://financialedge.investopedia.com/f ... thing.aspx

Nothing good ever comes out of people on Welfare.

You're right, the world would be much better off without Jay-Z, Celine Dion and Shania Twain being famous.

I understand you were attempting to be snarky, but I agree with your statement. Especially in regards to the first two...

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I don't mean to be rude, but that was not a citation.

Neeeek is a lawyer. He is a primary source for things within the law profession.

I consider myself a primary source on women being utterly self-centered to the point of being borderline retarded, but if I make a statement and forget the "my experiences are anecdotal" line people come out of the woodwork screaming "YOUR EXPERIENCES AREN'T STATISTICALLY ACCURATE RAR RAR RAR RAR!". Even if I had said that a dozen times before and I just forgot or didn't feel arsed to say it.

Don't get me wrong, I think Neeek is 100% accurate. I'm just saying that if I talked about my experiences and made even the slightest hint of generalization I'd be verbally raped.

[Kaelik]

I'd be verbally raped.

Did you see what Count was wearing? He was asking for it.

[CatharzGodfoot]

So, how do you punish poor people for having children without punishing the kids?

[PoliteNewb]

I don't mean to be rude, but that was not a citation.

Neeeek is a lawyer. He is a primary source for things within the law profession.

Sorry, that shit does not fly. One person's firsthand experiences do not equal a general truism. This is (I thought) an accepted maxim. Neeeek may be a lawyer, and this makes him an expert on the law (for a certain value of "expert"...there are plenty of lawyers I would not want representing my interests). It does not (necessarily) make him an expert on how much lawyers are paid as a general rule in the USA, and even if it DID, it doesn't make him an expert on how much other professions are paid...which you need if you're going to make comparisons, which he did (twice).

EDIT (to add): I am not accusing Neeek of being a liar or anything...but there exists a certain amount of personal bias in our perception of things. Because of this natural tendency, I'd prefer some raw data.

[Ravengm]

2) The argument that AFDC or whatever encourages people to have extra children is odd; only a hardcore moron would think that this is a financial incentive, as the program simply doesn't hand out enough money to raise multiple children. Simple mathematics shows that each additional kid only makes it harder to make ends meet.

Yet people misinterpret/can't do math/are batshit insane still and believe they can live off that alone. Not many, mind you, but they exist.

[Kaelik]

So, how do you punish poor people for having children without punishing the kids?

By not letting them have kids, I thought that was established?

Alternatively, if we lived in a Socialist Utopia, we could arrange for everyone to be able to feed themselves, live well, and go to school, without their parents having a cent.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Didn't Jonathan Swift figure out a way to solve poverty back in 1729?

[sabs]

2) The argument that AFDC or whatever encourages people to have extra children is odd; only a hardcore moron would think that this is a financial incentive, as the program simply doesn't hand out enough money to raise multiple children. Simple mathematics shows that each additional kid only makes it harder to make ends meet.

Yet people misinterpret/can't do math/are batshit insane still and believe they can live off that alone. Not many, mind you, but they exist.

I suspect there are way more people who claim that poor people are having kids to get more money, than there are actual people who do that math and have more kids for the purpose of having more money.

That argument is so batshit crazy it's silly.
You have people who seriously believe that:
Poor people are lazy fuckers who get what they deserve.
Birth Control and Abortion are an abomination before God.
Poor people are having children to get one over on the government.

[tzor]

So, how do you punish poor people for having children without punishing the kids?

Why do you feel the need to "punish" poor people in the first place? It smacks of eugenics. Ideally the best way is to help these people out of poverty, because in general, the more well off you are and the more controll you have over your life the fewer children you generally want to have. But even that is begging the question.

I would even argue that boiling down the whole problem to a simple dollar amount is a major part of the problem. I would argue that the problem with the "welfare" sate is the lack of empowerment and the depression of being "dependent" on the state. We need to "empower" the people, not punish them. In times past, most poor people lived in extended families; there were always grandparents, aunts and uncles to help with the children. Now we have single parent families and double parent families without that extended support structure. In the past, those children used to help their parents at home, now they are expected to not only be in school but to work at the same level as childen who are very well off and have ample time to devote towards studies.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I have heard many rich people accuse to me that poor people were breeding in order to get their money. I have never met any, but every tea party member I know can rattle off a list of names when pressed. I think it's because tea party members know scummy people.

[Kaelik]

That argument is so batshit crazy it's silly.
You have people who seriously believe that:
Poor people are lazy fuckers who get what they deserve.
Birth Control and Abortion are an abomination before God.
Poor people are having children to get one over on the government.

Once again, no one here (except Tzor) is saying that birth control and abortion are bad. The people in this thread who are suggesting that poor people not be able to have more kids are explicitly advocating abortion and/or birth control.

Opinions on birth control are not linked to opinions on giving more money to poor people who have more kids.

You are arguing against a strawman that is not representative of anyone in this forum.

No one is saying any of the things you are claiming they are saying.

[tzor]

Once again, no one here (except Tzor) is saying that birth control and abortion are bad. The people in this thread who are suggesting that poor people not be able to have more kids are explicitly advocating abortion and/or birth control.

First, I generally advocate against abortion, but for other reasons, having nothing to do with poverty. (Although a liberal abortion policy on poor people can increase the dependency feeling.) I could make an argument against birth control in general, but its really not worth doing so here and moot anyways. The problem is not with the availability of birth control / abortion. The problem is with the mindset of people who are amblivient or who might even want to have more children becuse of their feeling of dependency. They need to be empowered to want to not be frequently pregnant and then once so empowered, given the resources to accomplish that. If that includes the pil and contraceptives, then I'm fine with that, but you have to empower them first, because unless they want to use something they will not use something.

Forced sterilizations / abortions is also a mind fuck of the highest order, and anyone who treats their people that way should be brought up for crimes against humanity. It guarenteed maximum dependency and absolute welfare state.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

No one is going to allow anyone to be empowered unless they already have power.