this is a post?

now did you guys see why i was nervous?!?!?! i hope you pay attention next time...

*goes out drinking to necto in remembrance of what was big law, orders the cheapest drink available whilst dreaming of models and bottles that never were*

-nervous T-10 1L
soon to be nervous 1L sa (unless my offer is revoked)

Ah, Les Miserables. Most apropos, Elie. Now if I can just hock these silver candlesticks...

What a depressing day.....

if 1Lsa keeps his fucking offer when 3Ls are rescinded, there is no justice in the world

"Tomorrow really will be the day after tomorrow."

????

Do you mean the day after today.

Not that it would be better.

Quaking in our Manolos? We're not living the high life here. We're just trying to get by.

I like this post, Elie. What a fucking horrendous day. Good luck all.

Nice job keeping track of today's developments, Elie.

get your boy on

gorillaz - down is the new up

jim noir

Justice

every1 who visits this site is a 4chan nub

Good coverage today Elie. I am warming up to you.

7,

Movie reference. The day after shit went down.

And the righteous hurry past; they don't hear the little ones crying and the winter's coming on fast ready to kill...

Dear law clerk:

They will eventually make you leave. You can't clerk forever. Except now, when you're done, no one will want to hire you.

Signed,
Not-Quaking in Manolos

9 Agreed. I hope none of my friends got laid off today, and I'm certainly glad I didn't. To those laid off, I suggest a few stiff drinks, some pizza, and a couple of movies, and then a few more stiff drinks. To those not laid off, I suggest we go bill some hours.

11, you make no sense.

Wait, why are YOU planning to drink it off? Highly developed empathy?

It doesn't make sense.

"It is the music of a people who will not be slaves again. When the beating of your heart echoes the beating of the drum, there is a life about to start when tomorrow comes!"

McDonalds manager, working 9-5, 5 days a week, I'm coming for your job.

Nervous 1L had best keep it and his (probably fake) GPA to himself. The little snot has years to hide out in a library, while real people are losing their livelihoods.

Epic Fail, Nervous 1L

Nervous Michigan ass clown is worse than the holocaust.

In case you missed it in the avalanche of layoffs coverage, check out the second "Notes from the Breadline" post, from this morning:

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/notes_from_the_breadline_2.php

im a 0L

Guess I had better bite the bullet and get used to a happy life of mediocrity working in Barry Hussein's massive government-job family...

Black Thursday

On a windy Manhattan winter day
With the economy tanking under skies of gray
Associates and staff met an unkind end
As PPP’s continued to descend

Dechert released nineteen by noon
And greater losses would be announced soon
Next came news from Bryan Cave
Where fifty-eight young careers went to the grave

Goodwin Proctor continued the act
Wheen seventy-four employees were promptly sacked
Then fell the ax at Holland & Knight
The steady paychecks of hundreds vanished from sight

An industry leader in expanding too fast
DLA Piper added scores more to the unemployed caste
Then a large cull from the North Star state
As twenty-nine associates met a cruel fate

Cadwalader sent sixteen Londoners to redundancy consultation
But a week without Cadwalader layoffs would be quite the aberration
The final cut of the day came at a mid-size shop
Where more than fifty felt the ax drop

Our sorrow is deep for our colleagues fired en masse
But do keep in mind that this too shall pass
We share in your pain, your shame, your dismay
On this darkest of dark, this Black Thursday

25 = EPIC WIN

23 - If you're a 0L, why not flee from this profession as fast as you can?

Nice work, ATL Bard. Black comedy. I liked these lines (even if they don't scan perfectly):

"Cadwalader sent sixteen Londoners to redundancy consultation
But a week without Cadwalader layoffs would be quite the aberration"

I will definitely be asking my judge about extending my clerkship.

27 - Im in conflicts..lol

Great job today, Elie. I have not been a fan of your prose in general, but top-notch job following this.

Nervous, does posting your gpa and offer make you feel better about spending every valentines day alone with nothing more than your computer and a jar of astroglide?

Quaking in our Manolos?

Try John Lobb's.

BUY GUNS AND FOOD. MOVE TO THE WOODS.

Co-sign 31. Sometimes Elie's prose is a little rough around the edges, but the speed of his news gathering is impressive.

Elie earned some overtime combat pay today.

Nice job Elie. But I still think you should adopt healthier eating habits.

Also, kudos to Roxana for her fine column from this morning.

34 - And maybe some GOLD, too.

24 - Shoot yourself.

And what will tomorrow bring? Many firms like to announce layoffs on the Friday before a holiday weekend.

So as a 3L at a Tier 3 (yes, a TTT student on Above the Law) Law School, I rejected the opportunity to clerk for the Supreme Court of my home state, to instead begin a career with V50 firm...wow, I'm feeling pretty good about that move now.

nicely done today, Elie

To all those who were BigLaw....hahahahahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaahhaahahahahaha. And for all you that are still, You Are Next.

Soooo.....can I stop paying my student loans now? And if so what exactly are the repercussions??

(saving money for food & rent seems wise at this point, no?)

My apologies for the slip of the quill in stanza 3, line 2.

34-

I will be moving bullion in a sailboat for the politicians & bankers from FL to various carribean islands when they put in place controls prohibiting such for the rest of us.

I need armed deckhands if you are interested. Any recently laid off female associates under 30 can join my other operation. You won't need any new training for the world's oldest profession.

nervous 1L = tool shed. The highest form of tool.

this kid in my class had his summer offer rescinded and he found out via email during class. he said "FUCK" out loud and ran out of the class room with tears streaming down his face.

he didnt even take his shit with him. he never came back for it either. one of his friends packed that shit up and took it with her. it was fucking nuts

IM ON A BOAT MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!

"Soooo.....can I stop paying my student loans now? And if so what exactly are the repercussions??"

Don't worry, Congress/Obama are putting together a bill as we speak to help homeowners with their distressed mortgages. Distessed school loans will follow right after.

In fact don't stress but rejoice.... You should take out a huge mortgage on a McMansion right now on top of your school debt and let the government pay for half of it.

Well done to the ATL Bard. Poetry at its finest.

TOO LATE TO GO ON FROM G'S TO GENTS??????

can anyone tell me how staten island biglaw is doing?

It's on a day like today that I have to admit I was pure flame. Condolences to the hard-working attorneys that have suffered layoffs this week. You deserve better.

ahh nervous 1L, I remember my days deciding between offers at V10 law firms!

Oh wait, I forgot that never happened and I was working for free at a prosecutors office, the only place that would hire a useless 1L like myself.

I feel terrible for everyone who was laid off today. But as for you? I really do hope you lose that fucking offer.

What a fricken disaster of a day. It is funny though. Does anyone else have this fatalistic urge to want to have the reaper come for them.

Forget about NY IP to 190-Space law is starting to boom as satellites are starting to collide. There is no excuse for you self entitled brats: imagine all the potential for lawsuits and new law creation. Suck it up you whinners; go out and make some rain and work harder!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5721476.ece

57 - WTF did my Sith Lord recruit you after I turned to the light side?

58-no, I am a morgan finn partner who despises greedy associates.

59-
I'm a whinner!

59, a morgan finn partner who can't spell "whiner"?

I always thought whinner was a play of words on winner.

61, he also has a problem with proper colon/semi-colon and m-dash usage. Just saying...

weee-oooo, wee-ooo english police!

Bravo, ATL Bard. Brav-fucking-o.

34 - fabulous.

1. Nice work today, Elie.
2. Can you make ATL Bard a regular feature?
3. There are a lot of people interested in student loan deferrment, etc. Can you have a once a week real advice feature on these types of topics?

Good luck to all laid off. Fingers crossed that this economy turns itself around soon.

why does Elie get "good work" from everyone today? all he had to do was report what was told to him and post firm press releases. it requires no creativity or thought on his part.

unless everyone's complimenting him in a negative sort of fashion for not writing anything rife with typos and totally illogical

@24 -- Yes, because a post as a federal attorney is a one-way ticket to mediocrity.

You're a jerkoff.

I just turned off 'auto debit pay' for my student loans. I'm done, I'd rather eat and have shitty credit than be homeless. FUCK YOU SALLIE, FUCK YOU ALL TO HELL..

Today sucks.

BigLarry here saying - nervous 1L, if your summer associate offer is revoked, you can always apply to my internship program. Just slide your resume under the stall door. *tap... tap... tap...*

So a 3% (or whatever) decrease in PPP turns into hundreds of people losing their jobs, for many their homes, their medical coverage, their savings.... I've ridden one of these firms all the way to the ground and am currently riding another that looks like it's going to be taken out behind the barn and shot any day now. Greedy associates? You greedy partners can kiss my ass and suck my cock. Preferably simultaneously.

http://www.jdunderground.com

Elie, great job. I've give you grammar related crap (all in good fun) in the past, but you killed it today. This is why we need ATL. Sorry to all those let go today, hopefully you find a new firm (if that's what you want) or take this as a chance to do something else, if your passion is there. Hopefully everyone got decent severance packages.

As to the firms, I'm sure this was very difficult for the ones that actually see their associates as more than billing units. I've always had a good impression of Fagre, I'm guessing they are in this category with some of the small to midlaw shops. To the places that did this to keep PPP at $2.4 as opposed to $2.3 million this year, I hope you all get your moral just deserts at some point. Yes, it's a business, but a lot of people were devastated today, and if it didn't need to happen that's wrong.

Associate holding tightly to his job until his time comes (I'm taking the under)

Hey 74! I followed your link and this is the greeting i got:

Subject: Do fake boobs help/hurt your career
Response: In over 10 years of practice in several firms, I've never met a woman with noticeable breast implants. To the contrary, the number of the flat-chested women I've encountered was staggering. Women lawyers with breast implants is a fruitless research topic.

Elie, you did great today, as did the rest of the ATL contributors.
*

Two other points:

1. This post itself was pretty good. You said just enough, just funny/not funny enough.

2. It's definitely time for those pics Kash promised us when the time was appropriate.

25 = Amazing

67 = Great idea, ATL should definitely address these issues

i think the coverage is great here, but as the commenters at http://www.blackbooklegal.com say, this coverage is part of the problem/firings.

I second #77 (especially point 2 - I mean we all lost our jobs and could use some cheering up......)

this is hilarious.. tierists quivering in their boots. now you all will have to find real jobs producing something. i hope one of you gets punched in the throat the first time you correct someone's grammar at the drive thru. bwahahhahahaha!

Wow Elie, everyone loves you now. This is your "scud stud" moment.

I like Professor Thom's. If i wasnt at work I have friends going there anyway.

When I began reading the post, I thought Elie had been laid off and was going out to drink away his sorrows. No such luck. And as I think more about it, he's clearly a guy who eats, not drinks, them away.

79 very true but also true that ATL coverage helped to force salaries way up so you have to take the bad with the good I guess. Definitely so that there is comfort in knowing your peer firms are freezing/firing too. I smell collusion.

Elie, great job. This is why we need ATL. To those let go, good luck and I hope you have enough in severance/savings to hold until you find something else. To any firm that did this and it wasn't absolutely necessary for the health of the enterprise (and no, a 100K drop in PPP doesn't count when it's 2.5 to 2.4), I truly hope there is an afterlife so you can roast in hell.

Monday is not a holiday for most law firms. Especially biglaw. Tomorrow could be just as bad as today.

They're already going there.

Why today?

Over/under for tomorrow's layoffs is an even 1000. I've got the over.

I've been in BigLaw for 21 years and this has been one scary day. The thought of so many people out of work is disheartening. Yet part of me is glad that panic is setting in with so many bratty junior associates -- many of whom think that the world owes them something and wouldn't know a hard day's work if it bit them in the ass. My how times have changed in a few short months.

I've been in BigLaw for 21 years and this has been one scary day. The thought of so many people out of work is disheartening. Yet part of me is glad that panic is setting in with so many bratty junior associates -- many of whom think that the world owes them something and wouldn't know a hard day's work if it bit them in the ass. My how times have changed in a few short months.

does this mean there are going to be lots of vulnerable young female lawyers drowning their sorrows at bars around nyc for me to lend a shoulder to cry on, bring back to my place/theirs, and bang the hell out of, over the the next few weeks?

BigLaw may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!

Especially when they fire us. We'll be free to do all sorts of things - watch Price is Right, sell our possessions on craigslist, default on our loans, max out our credit cards, put our kids in public school....

Great work today Elie. Two points:

1. Could you please consider doing a post on personal finance for associates at biglaw firms, given the current layoffs? I was paying down my debt aggressively, but now I wonder if that's a bad idea, and how much money I should have in savings in case I got laid off. I also wonder what would happen if I just stopped paying on my loans in the event of a lay-off... will they ever go away? A post where people can talk about personal finances may be helpful.

2. Firms that layoff first years are scum. That is all.

Space law... I hope 58 realized 57 was sarcasim or was it just more flame on top of self entitlement flame?

Firms that layoff first years -- see the comments:

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/open_thread_where_are_first-_a.php?show=comments#comments

Advice on student loans: don't get them, retards. Free law school is out there for anyone who wants it. If you didn't get into a dick-measuring contest over HYS, you wouldn't be having the trouble now.

I love how all of BigLaw's problems stem from "bratty junior associates." These irresponsible 25 year olds need to take their jobs more seriously. Their self-entitled mentality has clearly caused their superiors to run their firms in to the ground in order to teach them the value of a good job.

91 should swallow a handgrenade

91 -- You so wise. Now fuck off.

Hah, 99. Well played, sir, well played.

This certainly is not good news for me.

I would like to add my voice to the chorus saying great job today Elie. He may weigh too much, but he really kept us in the loop and actually wrote interesting pieces for each layoff/throatslit.

Best Post of the Day:

"This is a sad day for the profession. I've practiced law proudly for thirty years, and I very much regret the way we who have been around for a while treat the beginners. Those junior lawyers who have been laid off will inevitably be alienated and we'll lose them, to the detriment of the profession and those who it's supposed to serve. The large law firm partners who have made these decisions should have left a few dollars on the table, and invested in the future of the profession that they claim to love by keeping their junior people through the storm even if they don't bill 2000 hours a year. The layoffs are terribly shortsighted. The irony is that most of the senior people who have decided to jettison junior people probably aren't as smart as the people they're firing."

I'm a new reader of this website. Who ran it before Elie?

Sorry, junior associates. I'd love to keep you around, but Mitsy and I are off to Tuscany next month, and Topher is in his 5th year at Trinity. In light of such trying economic circumstances, we have to make cuts somewhere. If you find your severance unsatisfactory, the I recommend you eat cake.

Best Regards,
BigLaw Partner

Mitsy's banging the help son.

I signed up for the QLTT in hopes that the UK market was better, but . . .

Don't pay off your low interest public debt. in bad times, you can extend those payments to a 30 year schedule and the interest rates are so low you won't be too hurt by paying later. Also, in the event of a long lay off you will need the cash and not be able to borrow. Finally, you should probably be saving for a down payment on an apartment. The mortgage company isn't going to be too stressed if you have a $700 monthly student loan payment versus a $300 payment, but they will certainly care if you can put another $30k into your down payment.
And one more thing, if we have a recovery and inflation goes through the roof because of all the money our government is printing. Those public debt interest rates are going to be real world negative in a big way. So they will be paying you for the privilege of having lent you the money.

Dear 106,

Maybe one of your former associates could use some of their newfound free time to scoot off to Tuscany, too. Find you and Mitsy, knock you out, and tie you down bent over a barrel.

What might justly happen next would involve a baseball bat, some epoxy, a lot of broken glass, some powdered lye . . . and your stinking, helpless asshole.

Thrust thrust, old chap!

105, shoot yourself. You don't deserve to read this site.

So I got laid off today....my lease runs through December. I have no savings because I've been paying into my loans...what happens to my credit when I default on my rent in a month? How do I mitigate the damage?

112: work out a lower payment with your landlord, and make the new payments out of your severance while looking for work?

Can we take a moment to recognize the sensitivity of Paul Hastings "performance-based" attrition press release earlier this week?

112, it depends on whether your landlord makes a report to the credit bureaus or if your landlord takes some type of legal action against you that results in a public record (public records appear on your credit report).

Try talking with your landlord and see if you can get out of your lease.

112 -- Break the lease, move in with family or a mate, and look for a job. You can get a random job -- something, anything -- on the side while you search.

My god. The U.S. Economy lost almost 600,000 jobs in january, and you people are panicking over 853 lawyers laid off???????

To those 858, I am sorry, but not any more sorry than I am about the other 600,000 americans who lost their jobs last month.

Let's do some math: 858 lawyers is .00074605% of the total lawyer population. (2007)

In january the economy lost 150,000 jobs per week. that works out to roughly .01% of the total workforce.

Get a grip people. The legal industry is still better than par. For now.

Dear BigLawPartner,

Maybe one of your former associates could use some of their newfound free time to scoot off to Tuscany, too. Find you and Mitsy, knock you out, and tie you down bent over a barrel.

What might justly happen next would involve a baseball bat, some epoxy, a lot of broken glass, some powdered lye . . . and your stinking, helpless asshole.

Thrust thrust, old chap!

I know it's just a drop in the bucket, but spare a thought for those on work visas who are amongst the laid-off. You get three weeks to leave the country. Thanks for coming.

I was fired but i'm not leaving. i'm taking my red stapler and moving to the mail room

117, I suggest you try surfing to www.abovetheuseconomy.com

"The U.S. Economy lost almost 600,000 jobs in january, and you people are panicking over 853 lawyers laid off???????"

Most of the laid off don't have a 3 years post-grad at $50k/yr invested. You are talking about a level of education and qualification that you wouldn't think would get axed.

110/118 = 180

Mystal usually pisses me off with his affirmative action/diveristy bullshit. But coverage today was excellent. This is why I check this site.

105 - A guy named David Lat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lat

Elie, good work lately.

117: The 858 layoffs are just from biglaw firms and you are comparing it to the entire population of lawyers. The percentage of lawyers who lost their jobs this month is undoubtedly much higher.

Holland & Knight to 190!!!
Epstein Becker to 190!!!
Cadwalader to 190!!!
Cozen O'Connor to 190!!!
Bryan Cave to 190!!!
Luce Forward to 190!!!
Faegre & Benson to 190!!!
DLA Piper to 190!!!
Goodwin Procter to 190!!!
Wold Block to 190!!!
Dechert to 190!!!

>

it was like, a total crowd scene in the unemployment line. i just couldn't make it on time...

I am getting wasted tomorrow night. Completely monged. I intend to wake up in another county, with a tat and a bite mark on my thigh.

As a pre-law student, this blog interested me at first. Now, however, it just makes me worried I'll never get a job to lose.

Please, let the next 6 years bring better news. I'd like to do what I enjoy--not what enables me to obtain any sort of employment. A better economy is the only thing that will save me from a future at McDonalds.

The moral of this story: Hubris begets nemesis.

Associates are expendable. What else is new? Those whining for a job should hit the pavement, build a clientele, and join a small firm. Your Harvard and Yale law degrees are now worth as much as a 4th tier. Cheers!

The moral of your photo is that clean-shaven is better than a comb-over. But barely.

131 - don't hassle it. my old man is a tv repair man. he has the ultimate set of tools. i can fix it

The moral of your photo is that clean-shaven is better than a comb-over. But barely.

Anyone at Merchant Gould who can explain what happened? I thought IP was safe.

Elie -- DC folks want to have a booze-up cry-fest tomorrow. Nominate a bar. Or make a post where we can nominate a bar.

112--most landlords don't report to credit monitoring bureaus, so odds are you're OK. Some do, though, plus you've got to deal with eviction once you stop paying. Talk to your landlord in advance of your first missed payment and see if you can work out a reduced rate or a break lease. They may be open to it if the housing market in your area is sliding (and it probably is). Can you take a roommate or crash with friends?

If, hypothetically, the national recession improves in Q3 of this year, when do the lawyer layoffs end? When are we out of the woods? I'm sick to my stomach about all of this and I am deeply sorry for all of you that have lost your jobs, seriously. There but for the grace of God go I (as of right now).

Seriously guys, is tomorrow going to brutal as well? Nobody has spoken to me at the firm the whole week and I am shitting spiked bricks.

112 - I'm sure you've already thought about this, but are there any family members or friends who can give you a short-term loan to tide you over?

hey i know you - you used to work at all-american burger

Well, with my severance I can afford to pay for a few months. What I'm thinking about doing is telling my landlord that I have NO money at all (laid off with no severance) and that I can try to borrow money from my parents or something if he reduces the rate a lot and doesn't report to credit bureau. I'm more worried about suing me for it all or reporting to my credit since the building isn't full and they likley can't fill my apartment. Should I draft up an agreement where they agree to a lower rate and not to report? - 112

It all just began kids. You know why it's just happening? Big firms have big egos. They dont want to admit they have to fire people. Of course, by the time they do, they have to let go of more to compensate.....

tick....tock....tick....tock....tick....tock..... when will it be you?

Good one 120. Let's bash the copier and burn down Inintech.

142 - Well, kind of but to be honest my parents don't make that much money. They haven't told me numbers but I'd guess like 50K or less for my dad and about 30K for my Mom and I have a bunch of siblings so they aren't really in a position to lend me a lot of money. I'm sure if I asked my Dad would figure out a way to get it but if theres a way to get out of it or the consequences aren't that dire then I'd prefer to not make him do that. OTOH I don't want to have a shitty situation fuck over my credit for the rest of my life... - 112

144, you should decide whether staying in the apartment at reduced rate or terminating the lease is better for you. Go for whichever is better. Don't let the empty apartments stop you from at least trying to get what you think is the best you can make of the current situation. If you cannot terminate but don't want to stay in the apartment, can you get a roommate (as other suggested) or sublet?

Guys at my high school used to get laid off all the time. It wasn't a big deal.

142, do not worry about your credit right now, you will have opportunities to build it back up. These are insane times and there are going to be a lot of people with shitty credit. Just do what you need to do to get by and hang in there. Godspeed to you.

drinks are on me, and you guys are invited too

Thanks 150 and others. I'm going to talk to my apartment tomorrow and see what they say. Hopefully they'll cut me a good deal. If not, I'll probably just default and move out. I'll try to post an update here and also post a bit about the longggggg job search. Will probably apply roughly everywhere in teh country since I'm not really tied to any region by family, etc.

152 -- One more thing: look up the landlord-tenant statute in your state and figure out if anything is amiss in your apartment. If the landlord is a dbag about reneg, you might have some ammo. It's not the coolest move, but these are desperate times.

153, just remember, the landlord has to feed his kids too. Trickle down is real.

112, What is your deposit? Is it big enough to cover your lease breakage? You might be able to sublet if you leave someplace with students (med school) and someone needs something short term for a rotation and does not want to sign a lease.

If you are getting a severance, then use it to pay rent and get your loans deferred.

119, that's a real eye-opener...

Here is a story for those law students who have gotten screwed or are going to get screwed. I hope my experience gives some comfort to someone out there.

I graduated law school in the early 90's right after the junk bond/S&L devastation, and I got slammed. I clerked my first year at a firm that no-offered their entire summer class. I made law review, and the only summer job I could get my second summer was with a shitty little general practice that was just looking for cheap temporary summer help. I graduated with law school debt, passed the bar, and spent two years ping-ponging between total unemployment and seriously crappy temp work. I also drank way too much.

I started to think about giving up on being a lawyer, and finding a non-law job to pay off my loans. But then I got angry. I took action.

I went back to school for training in a specialized area of the law, which led to a small job that paid about 25% below market. I took it, and it led to a better job, still below market, which lead to a job with the government, which at least was market (for the government). After a couple years in the government, I left and joined Big Law, eventually becoming a partner. I've been there ever since, and given my client base, I am hopeful - knock on wood - that I won't be repeating the 90's.

Yes it is bad out there - it's even worse then when I started out - but it won't always be so. Hang in there. Keep your courage, keep your faith in your own abilities and worth, and know that things will get better. This isn't the end of your career, it's only the beginning.

Best wishes and best of luck.

Don't worry everyone, the government dramatically increasing in size, regulation, and share of GDP will certainly fix everything right quick!

Soon, we'll all be adjusted to double digit unemployment as normal like the socialist countries we're apparently trying to emulate.

Don't knock McDonald's.

If you get into the Management Training Program, you'll start at $50k/year.

The guy that went to McD's management training program and developed his business - the guy who owns 5-6 McDonald's franchises - is doing MUCH better than ANY biglaw partner.

149, you mean guys at your HS used to get "laid" all the time (unlike you), not "laid off" (like you, on the other hand)

Ha ha ha

Who can tell me the facts of Carbolic Smoke Ball?

152, DO NOT DEFAULT!

Depending on your state, your landlord can most probably accelerate your rent for the entire lease and sue you for the whole amount (anticipatory breach).

You don't want to have a civil judgment against you. That will be a black mark for getting a job (all companies conduct background investigations on higher-level and sensitive employees).

"I went back to school for training in a specialized area of the law, . . " Like what?

I was thinking of an LLM in tax. What other training in a specialized area of the law is out there?

*****************************

It's a SAD, SAD DAY when...

*****************************

25-year-olds talk about the world being over and how to kill themselves...

There are a bunch of LLM. IP, Financial Services, etc. The only one that I have really seen make a difference is Tax. It is such a specialty field that you can often find work.

BigLaw Partner here. I understand some of you people who were laid off are experiencing housing troubles? It just so happens I have a little cabana by my pool that sits empty most of the year. If you'd be willing to maintain the pool (and service my dear Mitzi when the Viagra just isn't working), you'd be welcome to stay there.

Cheers,
BigLaw Partner

The Glass Cock here, wondering whether any of you associates who demanded $160k a year to start and huge bonuses thought about how those numbers affected the firm's ability to weather downturns in business. Maybe you'll think twice before you force us to have such high fixed costs due to associate compensation that we have no choice but to lay off people when things get slow.

157 -- Yeah, cause that's the problem. Everything would be fine if weren't for the government causing all these banks to overleverage and then fail. Wait, no, that's not it at all...

156 - Thanks for the encouraging story (if you really are who you say you are).

141, you are so not alone

TO THE red country and part of the gray country of Oklahoma, the last rains came gently, and they did not cut the scarred earth. The plows crossed and recrosscd the rivulet marks. The last rains lifted the corn
quickly and scattered weed colonies and grass along the sides of the roads so that the gray country and the dark red country began to disappear under a green cover. In the last part of May the sky grew pale and the clouds that had hung in high puffs for so long in the spring were dissipated. The sun flared down on the growing corn day after day until a line of brown spread along the edge of each green bayonet. The clouds appeared, and went away, and in a while they did not try any more. The weeds grew darker green to protect themselves, and they did not spread any more. The surface of the earth crusted, a thin hard crust, and as the sky became pale, so the earth became pale, pink in the red country and white in the gray country.

141 / 170: How busy are you? If you are billing under 100 hours a month, I'd be nervous.

Look at what happened to poor Roxana St. Thomas:

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/notes_from_the_breadline_2.php

"That will be a black mark for getting a job (all companies conduct background investigations on higher-level and sensitive employees)."

not in the future, when fully half of all applicants (supplicants?) will have similar issues. Kinda like smoking pot no longer precludes you from being president.

Join the new world.

173, not true, but you can go on believing that if you want. Just wait until the economy recovers and you're competing with law school grads and attorneys with no black marks.

Not to mention the non-law people that you will be competing with for business and government jobs.

167 - Maybe the firms shouldn't have offered such recockulous compensation. I mean, seriously, were law firms really worried that if they held associate salaries in the $110,000's that no one would go to law school anymore, there would be no more associates, and the profession would wither and die?

Blaming associates for accepting high salaries is like blaming borrowers for accepting sub-prime mortgages - totally misplaced. The fault lies with the people who control the money, not the people that accept it.

174 - Depends on what kind of black marks you're talking about. Bad credit? Yeah, well, lots of people will have bad credit. Judgments against you? Probably a bit harder to overcome.

122, 117 here. In other words your social status entitles you to a high paying job, and therefore we should feel worse for you than all the other Americans who've lost their jobs? Perhaps the silver lining of our crappy economy is that it might give babies like you a taste of reality.

127, quite true. However, it would take over 11000 lawyers out of work this week to match the overall job loss rate.

175, you missed the point. It's not about blame, it's about understanding the consequences of your actions. Associates demanded ever increasing salaries and bonuses. They got it. And now that the economy sucks, they are losing the jobs with very little warning because the high fixed comp costs can't be carried for as long as those lower fixed costs could have been carried. In other words, stop whining about the layoffs.

Why aren't associates negotiating for a share the pain kind of solution like a salary cut.

177, I'm sure there's more than 11,000 lawyers out of work. Have you checked Craigslist recently? There are newly admitted attorneys offering to PAY for the privilege of working for some solo just to learn the ropes of how to be a crappy ambulance chaser. Scary times out there.

Point taken, of course, that it's unlikley that 11,000 lawyers lost their jobs this week.

167 -- I agree with 175 that you can't blame associates for "demanding" $160k salaries. Those salaries are driven (or should we now say "were" driven) by substantial and excessive demand (Big Law firms) for limited supply (accomplished T-n law grads). What's the difference now? That demand is adjusting itself to normal levels, just as the economy is adjusting itself down to normal levels. Big Law piggybacked with bankers on the leverage bubble, and now it's bursting.

175 -- That was a bad analogy. Yes we can (and should) blame sub-prime borrowers for "accepting" sub-prime mortgages. No down payment + Interest only payment schedules = irresponsible and idiotic.

Joe the Lawyer sucks ass. Try something else

I think quibbling over relative loss numbers is unhelpful. No one on this site has any idea how many of the 1.1 million lawyers nationwide have lost their jobs since the recession started.

I think we can agree that it will hit everyone hard - from self-entitled crybabies to hard-working respectable counselors - and we'll all be glad when it's over.

How is babby formed?

How girl get pragnent?

177, 122 here. No one said a job is an entitlement no is that social status deserves a job. I's the actual investment in time, money, and effort to earn a degree that deserves respect and would have been expected to make you valuable enough to keep a job.

I still have my job, but if I didn't and was just starting out, I would really have regretted it. You can make $200k with a lot less education and effort than getting a LLB.

Things are bad but they're going to get ugly. PPP rode the wave of ever increasing I-bank and CEO pay and now that I-bank and CEO pay are cliff diving, PPP is about to do the same.

Trick is, at-will associates will take the first hit. Then the old Wall Street Journal-reading partners, then the service partners. What will remain is something like what firms looked like in 1980. That means there'll be no need for "document review teams" and "discovery partners". There'll be the folks who shovel the shit, the talented young lawyers on their way up, and a few partners with deep books of business. If you ain't one of those prepare to start squealing like a pig.

Glass Cock, I think you missed the point. Associates didn't DEMAND anything. They don't have that kind of leverage. When was the last time an summer associate dictated his or her salary demands to Skadden or Wilmer or Patton? Never, that's when.

Firms OFFERED salaries based on what we now see is an untenable business model, and like good capitalists everywhere the associates took it. Now that the economy has tanked, poorly managed firms are making cuts, and associates are the innocent victims of firm mismanagement.

How many firms really need to be firing associates? Not that many. Most are driven by the need to increase ppp. Ten years ago, less than twenty firms had ppp of more than a $1 million. Today, the vast majority of the Amlaw 100 does and significant percentage of the Amlaw 200. So profits are less than last year, big deal. 2006 and 2007 profits were astronomically high. If firms are in danger of going under, associates should be fired but if partners are trying to increase ppp another $100,000 than that is ridiculous.

ATL, should stop reporting layoffs. This just helps give cover to firms who are looking for cover to use this bad economy to increase ppp. Many biglaw partners are still bitter about the raises given a couple years back. So now firms are able to look at ATL and say XYZ firm fired 100 people so we have every right to fire 50.

It is a race to the bottom.

Boston Herald article on the layoffs (quoting Elie and Lat):

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2009_02_13_Law_firms_laying_off_1_000:_Goodwin_Procter_axes_74/

Like the Grand Ole Party, Big Law will rise again!

Don't worry. OBAMA WILL FIX EVERYTHING.

HOW'S CHANGE TREATING YA'LL??

CHANGE! YAY, CHANGE!!!!

Didn't the Confederacy say that too, 190?

188, you're living in a fantasy world. Think of all the people who worked in investment banking a year ago. Think of how many of them have a similar job now.

That proportion will probably be the same for Biglaw associates a year from now.

Check your history books, 192. The Confederacy belonged to the Democrats. We are the party of Lincoln and Victory.

194 - I stand corrected, and hope you're right.

193, the downturn is hurting corporate work. Litigation and bankruptcy are doing pretty well. Law firms are not doing even close to as bad as investment banks and shouldn't be treating their employees as such.

BigLaw Partner again. Gentlemen, I take umbrage with these allegations of "firm mismanagement." I made 2 million dollars this year. I'd say we're managing quite well, thank you. If you junior associates think otherwise, you should start your own firm and make millions too. Otherwise, you may kiss my tanned and Botoxed behind, just like the senior associates do.

A Happy Valentine's To All,
BigLaw Partner

My fellow Americans, change is coming to America. It's true that things will get worse before they get better, but nothing good comes without hard work.

On behalf of a grateful nation, I think you for your sacrifices, and I look forward to your future contributions as productive lawyers.

Together, we can make it happen. Yes, we can. Yes, we will.

Believe in change, and change will come.

=======================================
NOTICE: I AM NOT REALLY OBAMA. THIS IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REAL OBAMA, HIS ADMINISTRATION, OR HIS AFFILIATES.
=======================================

I quit.

-Count Layoffula

Can I have your job 199? I'll suck yo' dick, man.

The following Civil Service Personnel-Civil Srvc and Iraq Jobs jobs were just posted at https://jobs1.quickhire.com/scripts/dos.exe

Job: ISN-2009-0031
Job Position: 0560 Budget Analysis
Job Description: Budget Analyst
Job grade: GS-11/12
Open Date: 02/13/2009
Close Date: 02/27/2009
Salary Range: $60989.00-$95026.00
1 vacancy at Washington DC Metro Area, DC

Follow this link to the job listed above:
https://jobs1.quickhire.com/scripts/dos.exe/rundirect?Org=6&Job=6013

146 = epic fail
It's not a copier assclown, it's a printer. Copiers don't have PC Load Letter errors.

I just cut a massive line for the fallen.

202 = epic EPIC fail

It's a fax machine, dipwad. NOW GO CRY, YOU STUPID FUCK.

My, Obama really is getting edgier as his term goes on.

Hardscrabble. It is what a few will become. And they'll be the better for it.

is today gonna be another killa day?

or shall i tell the four horseman to chill out in my backyard for a bit yet?

friday the 13th. nothing bad will happen today.

Wow, 204, that is dead-on Obama. I had him for Con Law, and when I couldn't tell him what the main dispute in Nixon was, he said:

"Executive privilege, dipwad. NO GO CRY, YOU STUPID FUCK."

Then he went out for a cigarette. That was change I could believe in.

um 600 lawyers got shitcanned today, roughly ruining their lives in the short to medium term.

you think these assholes give a rat's ass about Friday the 13th fucktard?

There's a man with a hockey mask outside my office door. He's holding a pink slip. I'm scared.

Tell my mom I love her.

F'n crybabies the lot of you. You should be ashamed of yourselves. The market sucks. Get over it. Or at least get over the cleft growing between your legs. Jeeezus, you make me want to kick your ass.

sarcasm. anxiety is no excuse for failing to recognize the same. -208

When will the rash of rescinded 3L offers and canceled summer programs start?

Also - can we get a full post consolidating options like DA and PD offices, JAG, government, in-house, etc? There are a lot of people needing a jump on their applications.

Hi 212. I have a message for you. The hiring manager would like to see you in his office. He has a pink piece of paper he'd like to give you.

The people who get seriously angry about Nervous T10 1L comments are definitely the best part of this board.

210 here. 213 - so chastened. i thought the raw fear would sharpen my senses... seems instead to be just making me pms-ish.

Prisons are the next solar panels. Arnold Shwarznegger knows about this all too well. Can you build and operate them for less than the state of California and still generate a good margin? If yes, you have a beautiful future. How much does land plus construction plus maintenance (inclduing feeding people) cost? Probably a lot less than you coudld charge for it. Yucca mountain land is probably a good deal. You have to think options.

214, they already started.

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/luce_forward_rescinds_3l_offer.php

You're next.

Wait, we're naming it TTThursday, right?

ooh sweet schtick - you'll trot that out later today i hope?

DLA Piper can suck a big fat fucking dick. Racist and completely mismanaged. I get angrier the more I think about my situation there.

Jonathan Klein--rot in hell you fucking troll of a man.

I apologize for my previous outburst. I thought I had the mic turned off. What I said then was just a combination of a Freudian slip and accidental juxtaposition of words.

But frankly, just give me a break. This economy shi- I mean, stuff, is a lot harder than I thought it would be.

STOP CRITICIZING ME.

It's hard enough just to get someone into that Director of Treasury position or whatever it's called.

My two year old says "Obamas" when he hears the President on NPR. My two year old also shits his pants.

Good luck to all of our laid off colleagues. Never thought it would come to this level of layoffs. To all the junior associates out there please be very mindful of the times. I am still shocked by the number of juniors who are acting like nothing has changed. Not blaming associates at all because this is not their fault but please display some level of survival instinct.

For the people commenting on the financial numbers being reported, keep in mind that most firms did not project flat or falling profits so when you see a firm down from 2007 it is an absolute disaster because the real problem is that the firms where significantly below their expected targets for 2008.

Very funny, 215. Hillarious! YOU, my friend, are the CHANGE we have been looking for!!!

222, tell me more about DLA Piper's racism. This is definitely NOT the change we are looking for. I will change their lack of change.

DLA Piper is a fucking joke. Who the hell made today's decisions on who stayed and who went? Fire people if you have to (the economy is bullshit whether or not we want it to be), but for the love of bloody god, fire the no-talent, underperforming, bumbling idiots, of which there are plenty. But like a commenter on another thread said - it depends whose ass you kiss, not the quality of your work.

229- oh dear dear. the truth you speaketh. looks like you've learned a fundamental lesson (besides stating the obvious). next time around, i'm sure you'll have the chapstick at hand to take care of business. i love me some ass.

people: pad your hours, interview during lunchtime, and then pad your hours some more. fuck it. the days of honesty and honor in this profession are done. and not because we, the associates, made it so. they the partners are responsible. so make that one minute phone call 0.5 and make that 1.0 memo 2.5. keep doing it and then do it some more.

partners -- you alone are responsible for this. for the ruin of this once great profession. we the associates formally reject you all and will do everything in our power to take as much money for as little work as possible. fuck you all.

good day.

Fear not, because change is coming to America.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

two-thirty-twoskie

232 - fuck you. your stimulus sucks too

Another 1L here, can someone tell me how this 1st year associate salary of 160k started? Which firm(s) implemented it first and when. Law firms prospered because of Wall Street's greed and they became greedy themselves and now we all pay for it. Hopefully I'll be able to get a SA position for 2010 or should I just quit now?

Damnit Obama, you're starting to sound a lot like Bush with the stimulus nonsense!!!! Don't you get it, can't just keep throwing money at the problem!

dammit. 232 just ruined my "two-thirty-twoskie"

235 -- go back to conlaw class and shut up, or die. jerkoff

Wah wah wah. What you need is some Morissey in your life.

235 -- you're obviously too stupid to ever work at a firm that starts at 160. so don't worry about it and go back to sleep. nighty-night

234, give me a break about the stimulus package.

I can't get the stimulus package right if I don't have a Treasury Secretary, now can I?

Not feeling too smart now, huh?

I went to Harvard Law School, where I was President of the Law Review. That qualifies me for President.

235:If you don't know, then you are already out of your league. go join a nonprofit or an ngo

25, that was brillz! keep it coming!

Someone please explain the "two-thirty-twoskie" joke to me.

I just chopped a massive line for the fallen.

243: 232 tried to be 232, but someone posted ahead of him and he became 233.

not too smart, are we?

243: "not too smart"

-hence you're an Obama supporter

240: Dumbass, you don't need a treasury secretary for Congress to pass H.R. 1 did I mention you're a dumbass?

That is correct. I am not "too" smart. I am MORE than "too" smart.

239 please elaborate

Public post. If you are a lady who has been layed off because of law firm layoffs, you should know about all of youre options. Trust me I now. You're not as bad shape as you may think that you are. I have very good business opportunities for you. I insure you that this new opportunity is pretty much the same as youre last job. Thank you for your consideration in thsi matter.

248 = RACIST

250: i'm sure you "now" a lot of things. do you "now" to shut up?

Heh. Not a lawyer and don't really want to be one. I just have a couple of friends who are first year and second year associates. I feel sorry for the support staff who lost their jobs today, but remember this:

For every engineer we graduate, Japan graduates 10 engineers. For every lawyer Japan graduates, we graduate 10 lawyers.

No offense, but this shell game had to end some time. We pay paper-pushers as much as we pay non-specialist doctors out of school, even though GP's have to go through four years of med school plus four hellish years of residency earning about $10/hr.

My guess is corporate law practice will come back down to earth, with cheaper small and mid-size firms hiring up the laid off lawyers. The days of the mountains of money for corporate law practice are probably over.

I am not racist.

You need to share the wealth more.

235, 249: yes, just quit now. how's that for an elaboration?

235, 249: All of this is due to your non-support of my stimulus package. You need to understand that I am YOUR President, whether you voted for me or not. As YOUR President, I know best, and I will do what's best. You need to zip up your mouth, sit down, and trust me. And listen to me...you might learn something, son.

255 did you get fired yesterday? if not, I hope you get fired today

254: typical liberal speak. why don't y'all earn your own money instead of taking mine. i refuse to share

258, the reason we spread the wealth around is because it's more fair. That is what America is all about.

255: no, did not get fired, nor will i. aside from the fact that my bmw is in the shop, i'm actually doing fine and am quite comfortable right now, thank you. what's your beef?

253 - ohhhh puhhhhhleeeeaze. do you actually know any docs? a gp. really, a gp? they have it so hard compared to an associate at a v10? you need to check yourself moron. gp residency and practice demands are far less than the rigors of an associate at biglaw. and engineers. wtf do engineers have to do with anything. like that's a real job. a monkey can use formulas to draw lines. what's your point again???

253 - ohhhh puhhhhhleeeeaze. do you actually know any docs? a gp. really, a gp? they have it so hard compared to an associate at a v10? you need to check yourself moron. gp residency and practice demands are far less than the rigors of an associate at biglaw. and engineers. wtf do engineers have to do with anything. like that's a real job. a monkey can use formulas to draw lines. what's your point again???

259: that's nice and all, but please respond to 247. perhaps you need to go back to college and take a poly sci course

and no, i reject that, that's not what this country is about; that's what the E.U. is about. you can't, and won't, have my money. EVER!!!!!

253: so now that you got rejected from law school and have failed first-year med school, will it be chiropracty or poditry???? we real lawyers want to know, real bad

SPREAD THOSE BUTTCHEEKS SO WE'S CAN SMELL MICHELLE'S JUICY INSIDES!!!!

260 just annoyed by ur comment. I was just curious of biglaw salary history..... keep ur eye on the bmw cause I'm scratching it as you read this.

266: oh, gee, i'm sorry, did i hurt your feelings? ok, here it is: after the tech boom in 1999-2000, BIGLAW salaries went from 90K or so to 125K, b/c a silicon valley firm raised. a few years ago, soem other firm raised to 145, and all followed. the another went to 160.. i think one was west coast and the other ny. but don't have names. it's been 160 since.

btw, my bet is you're a chick........

if that enough info, boo boo??? if you need the actual firms' names i'll run and get them, pronto

266: If you are a chick, as 267 thinks, are you hot??

You can call eight ball in the corner when you shootin pool
But when you play the game of life, ain't no stupid rules
Gotta go for yours at all times
Cause if you don't, nigga yours will be mine

Real world skills can be helpful in times like these. I'm glad I can type...

270: I'm with you, bro

Simpson Thacher started the $160k trend. And hasn't done layoffs, and likely won't. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

117 is a moron, and can't do percentages/math in general.

The labor force is roughly 150 million. There are roughly 1 million lawyers. 800 odd lawyers getting laid off is proportionally equivalent to 120k people getting laid off across the country as a whole. Which, you know, would be a lot.

where'd you get that jacket?

Mr. Hart, do you agree we need to spread wealth around as Mr. Obama suggests?

253. Japan is a bad analogy unless you assign zero worth to having a freely functioning legal system. You realize that Japan had historically set a ridiculously low bar passage rate. Somewhere in the range of 1 to 2%, which creates a real disincentive to even try to be a lawyer. You also realize that historically Japan's businesses have been controlled by a few bosses at the top and that no one dared challenged them, meaning that anyone with any real grievances would never get redress. The US is definitely an outlier in having too many lawyers. But your comparison takes an opposite outlier in having too few lawyers (in comparison to averages for industrialist countries) and uses that as your baseline.

So glad I accepted an offer in Texas and not NYC. I have been able to save more money, and if I get laid off, it will probably not be for another several months. I billed over ten hours every day this week, and the work is picking up even more.

Don't comment on Japan unless you've been there and know something about the legal system.

If we had a lot of their rules and cultural traditions, we'd have about as many lawyers as well. On the plus side, you wouldn't have to do doc review because there is no discovery in Japan.

As we weather this storm (and it will get better), anyone who is a nonequity partner should have his/her salary tied to the success of the equity partners. A portion of the salary should be deferred, and if ppp increase or decrease, the salary increases or decreases proportionally. This would accomplish two things. First, it would signal to partners that their employees are willing to sacrifice to get through this. Second, if would require that firms open up their books (so that partners cannot delay their compensation by making longer term capital improvements).

Let's face it, the present business model is completely f***ed. Every V50 firm has hired the best and the brightest--people who are not content to be out of control. Those associates deserve to know the financial state of their firm, on a continuing basis.

As to everyone calling for the end of the world, please take a deep breath and relax. If you've just been laid off, you have my deepest sympathies. However, a reality check would be nice. Prior to your layoff, you belonged to the top 10% of income earners in the US. You should not have been living pay check to pay check. Yes, you may owe a lot of debt, as does almost every other American. Call your lenders and work something out. Cut your expenses and get a job--any job. You will get through this.

"At the end of the day there's another day dawning
And the sun in the morning is waiting to rise
Like the waves crash on the sand
Like a storm that'll break any second
There's a hunger in the land
There's a reckoning still to be reckoned and
There's gonna be hell to pay
At the end of the day!"

It would seem this is the reckoning. We're all paying--big, mid, small. Nobody's going to slide through this. So calm down, marshal your resources, and start figuring it out. We made it through at least seven years of higher education. Once you get over the initial shock, pull yourself together. Regroup. Change directions. As wretched as this is (and I am one of the laid-off), it's a chance to make some changes for the better.

It's not the end of the world. It's just a bend in the road. Adjust. Or, you know, don't. Your call. But I'm saving my empathy and support for those who don't give up in the face of adversity.

Maybe now BigLaw will tell NALP to f*ck off and develop a hiring system that makes more sense. Think about it, most firms set their 2010 fall class size in the fall of 2008 when making offers to 2009 summer associates. It is impossible for an organization in almost any organization to predict its headcount needs 2 years out. And maybe firms will reconsider their payscale for summer and junior associates as well. Of course, like Wylie Coyote BigLaw never learns from its mistakes; I fear that once this crisis is over it will be business as usual.

hey a bright spot.................................at least alternate side parking was cancelled Thursday

Everything is going to be OK. This is America.

Spreading the wealth is the great equalizer in this fine country. Fairness is what the U.S. of A. is all about.

As soon as I get a Treasury Security, change will come to the economy and we can get the stimulus program under way.

We need to spend money to get out of this recession. My government will tackle this challenge head on. Economic models show that government spending is the best way to increase GDP. I will do what is best and what is right for this country.

I am your president, and you must believe in me with all your heart. Only then can change really come to America. Because YES WE CAN, and YES WE WILL.

CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA. BELIEVE IT.

I kind of like Obama troll.

I think it's time for us to introduce a little chaos.

73 is spot on! I'm in Chicago and have plenty of cases against and/or with some of the firms that did that shit yesterday. When the withdrawal of appearance forms or "non-affiliation with firm" forms start coming in through the mail and the associates (most all decent people) that were on those cases get replaced with the assbag partners that ruined their careers, there will be no professional courtesies extended and, within ethical boundaries, they will receive no agreements on ANYTHING. Greedy mother fuckers!

Don't know what the 'flame' shit be, but when asked, I just tell the truth.

The ship be sinking...

Someone should prepare an ATL dictionary/encyclopedia. There are so many great terms to define:

TTT
ATL Bard
Obama Troll
Half-Skadden
TTTThursday
Butt Cheeks Scandal, The
A**lobster

We've lived our entire lives following rules: We've gone to school, we've done our homework, we've even driven on the right side of the road. And what has that gotten us? Nothing. Why live by rules when life is essentially chaotic? Chance dictates most of our decisions. The only way to live in the world is without rules.

Elie, you fat shit, you should know better than to take the Lord's name in vain....some people who read this blog don't take kindly to your throwing it around the way you have in this post, so why not act like a civilized human being for once

Prett-y good Elie. Prett-y, prett-y, prett-y, prett-y good.

Elie Mystal:

Do not take the Lord's name in vain. Edit your publication immediately.

277 -- if you think Texas is a safe haven, then you clearly haven't been in the same meetings that my colleagues and I have been in. Layoffs have been going on at all the big firms here, too, and there are more still to come.

Law related layoffs: 800+; Doctor layoffs: 0.

You should have gone to medical school folks!

@291 -- Jesus flipping christ on a bike STFU.

Peaches Geldoff

$wf0k salaries are not the cause of this. The simple fact is that regardless of an attorney's salary, the firm is not going to keep an attorney they can't keep busy. Whether the firm is paying out $160k and getting no return or $100k and getting no return is irrelevant because both options are unacceptable to big law firms (as they should be).

Spreading the wealth around is the answer to our nation's financial crisis. Here is why:

1. Spending is of utmost importance to jump-start the economy

2. People cannot spend what they don't have

3. Therefore, we need to provide every American with money so that this money can be spent in furtherance of our economy

Obama, does the Secret Service know you are using you Crackberry to post on ATL? Tsk, tsk. Sir. Don't you have homeless black ladies to kiss?

298, don't forget to mention how all the jobs will come back once you make the law firm partners pay an extra $250k each to Social Security.

I have it on pretty good authority that there won't be ANY layoffs at my firm. However, they did announce yesterday that they'll be cutting back from 3 to 2 frozen marg breaks per day. *slurp*

Agreed 290. Let the bank robbing begin!

It's drizzling outside here in Houston today. Inside however it's still raining money as my check can attest.

Texas actually has an economy tied to something besides moving money around. We exploit our natural resources and we make things others want to buy. Oh, and we don't pass out money to the undeserving while punitively taxing the successful. Plus, no rent control. So, livin' is cheap and easy and the money is here to be made.

Sux be to you NY.

This is, unfortunately, a compelling article
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202428236375

I wonder if Elie got laid off? No ATL updates so far...

Here's a pink slip for everyone on this thread. Happy Valentine's Day.

My sincere sympathies to those who were laid off yesterday, or are receiving pink slips today. Given the current economic situation, it will be challenging to find new jobs, especially for first and second year associates who have little experience on their resumes. It's clear that these layoffs were motivated far more by the impact of the current economic crisis on clients, and the secondary impact of that on the business volume of law firms, than they were by evaluations of the individuals involved.

The current situation involves more than just a short-term recession. These kinds of major, simultaneous, across the board layoffs of professionals did not occur during prior recessions. This is, instead, comparable to what happened during 1930, the year following the stock market crash of 1929. We may not yet be in a full-blown, long-term depression like that of the 1930s, but the issue is whether we can take sufficient steps as a nation to avoid one and limit the damage to a severe short-term recession instead.

A solid market for corporate legal services will not return unless we can reinvigorate our economy. Historically, the role of lawyers in the US economy has been to help develop innovative concepts, both for government and for business, that would support the development and growth of productive economic activity. For the past decade, however, about all that we have seen from the corporate legal world is a stale rehashing of just three ideas: deregulation, upper bracket tax cuts, and overseas investment to cut labor costs.

Judging from the comments on this thread, the corporate legal world has spent little time reflecting on what caused the current crisis, or how we can get out of it. Continuing to advocate those stale policies will do nothing to pull us out of the current crisis. We need new ideas. Directing personal ridicule at President Obama may be amusing and temporarily diverting, but it does nothing to develop fresh concepts to get us out of our current morass.

What we are seeing now results from the failure of deregulation, tax cuts and overseas investment overseas to move the US economy forward in productive ways.

Deregulation left banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies playing games without any rules or referees. This allowed their managers to take highly imprudent business risks with investors' money, contributing directly to repeated economic bubbles, market crashes and illiquidity.

Rather than freeing up capital for economically productive investments, upper bracket tax cuts magnified the incentives for corporate managers to take imprudent risks in hopes of obtaining outsized bonuses in the short term, rather than pursuing prudent investments to build market share and stable businesses in the long term. Those risks, and the exclusive focus on short-term results, led to massive losses, undermining corporate performance rather than enhancing it.

To the extent that tax cuts freed up funds for investment, most of those funds were invested overseas to pursue lower foreign labor costs, rather than here in the US. The net effect was to export not just jobs, but large portions of our domestic economy. During the past decade, US corporate investment bankrolled infrastructure and industrial development in China and other countries, rather than here in the US. Our economy has fallen farther and farther behind as a result, causing major, long-term damage to our country's economic viability. Corporate executives like to cast blame on government regulatory policies and labor unions, but it is corporate investment decisions rather than regulations or labor that have undermined investment in our economy.

Although Republicans have an opportunity to play a valuable role as a loyal opposition, thus far they have contributed little or nothing in the way of new ideas, and are simply continuing to advocate things that have already been tried and haven't worked. Republican legislators have been complaining that Democrats offered them no real opportunity to negotiate on the current economic stimulus legislation. The main alternative proposal advanced by Senator Jim DeMint, however, consisted of nothing but additional upper bracket tax cuts -- more of the same failed policies that caused this crisis in the first place.

Those of you who substitute personal ridicule of President Obama for thought are simply spinning your gears. Our country's economy is going to go precisely nowhere unless we can break out of the failed policies that destroyed our economic vitality over the past decade.

We need to restore comprehensive and effective regulation of the financial industry. The goal of doing so is not to penalize corporations or their executives for legitimate business activities, but to create safeguards against excessive risk, and create new incentives for prudent, long-term investment in economically productive business activities.

To the extent that tax cuts can play any role in economic recovery, they need to be lower-bracket tax cuts aimed at reinvigorating consumer activity, rather than upper-bracket cuts which lead only to wasteful corporate bonuses. Providing Bank of America with TARP funds to defray the costs of the $3.6 billion in bonuses that Merrill Lynch paid to its executives this past December won't do anything to get our economy going again.

While it would be a mistake to pursue protectionist policies that would impede international trade, we need to find ways to encourage greater investment in the US economy. If the private sector won't make such investments, the government must do so instead. The private sector has totally botched the job of investing in the US economy for the past decade. That's why any economic stimulus plan has to include domestic spending rather than just tax cuts.

Expressing concern about personal finances and large student loans is entirely understandable. Instead of directing harsh personal criticism at law firm partners who have been forced to make difficult decisions about law firm staffing, however, or wasting time directing personal ridicule at individual politicians, start thinking about what we can do as a country to get our economy moving again. If you don't like what President Obama and the Democrats are proposing, and you don't think the current economic stimulus package will be effective, come up with some new ideas of your own, instead of simply rehashing the same old stale and unsuccessful policies that got us into this recession.

After reading the article 304 posted, I have one thing to add - this downturn will distinguish the men from the boys.

Firms that have layoffs and cut wages will be known, and those that do not will be known - the V20 is a fiction, there a real differences in these places, if not in the quality of the lawyers, in the decision-making of the partnership - in firm management.

Many people saw this downturn coming - hell, I myself was telling everyone who would listen at my firm that it was all going to be crashing down shortly in 2005, that they should prepare for large double digit drops in the Dow and housing prices, but few listened. (For those of you I talked out of buying a house at the peak, you owe me dinner.) The firms that diversified their practices, did not over-hire during the bubble, and prepared for the down cycle in advance, or whose business is solid enough to weather a little downturn in profits without mass firings and wage cuts, will be rewarded now (and should be).

The question is, will anyone remember in 10 years, and will our newly reformed economy with a much larger government sector and correspondingly smaller private sector, afford the same law firm opportunities ever again that it did in the last 20 years. I doubt it on both counts.

-- Jim from LA (now SF)

307, people who don't pay taxes cannot have their taxes cut. The top 5% of income earners already pay more than 50% of the taxes - you are the one rehashing old BS, not the GOP. If you want big government, come out and admit it, but if you think massively increasing the size of government and the scope of regulation is going to cause the economy to grow rather than consciously shrinking it in exchange for redistribution, you're deluded. Welcome to double digit unemployment on a permanent basis, like the countries we're now trying to emulate with their larger governments and so-called social programs. Enjoy the bureaucracy and loss of incentive to innovate - you've gotten what you've always wanted.

309, shhhh, it's not welfare if you call it a "refundable" income tax credit to people who pay no income taxes!

309 or 310: Do you have any idea how many Americans fall into the category of paying "no" taxes? I suspect the number is much smaller than those of you crying about it realize.

311, 40% of American households pay no income taxes and thus get no help from income tax credits unless they are made "refundable."

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/allinfo.pdf

Is 40% "much smaller" than what you suspect?

#309...You are correct and elegantly so, on all counts.
Relentlessly thinking and crying "What About Me?" is how we got in this mess.

60 million uninsured
tens of millions more underinsured
tens of millions more on the brink of becoming uninsured

death, pain, suffering, anxiety, medical bankruptcies - is this what a *rich* country does?

Is this what humane people do?

we we just eat, fuck and destroy the environment in the process?

or can we redeem ourselves by showing some compassion and extending healthcare to all, without anyone worrying about whether they can get treatment?

EVERY other developed country does it! Why the fuck do we think we shouldn't do it?

I pay a LOT of taxes on my fat V15 midlevel job. I WANT my taxes to go to public healthcare and would be willing to take a hike in taxes to make that happen.

309, 310, 312 -- take a closer look at the data in the CBO document that 312 posted.

The overall effect of tax cuts enacted during the past couple of decades has been regressive, with the greatest benefits accruing to the top 1 percent of American taxpayers. The CBO data (p.2) shows that between 1979 and 2005, total effective federal tax rates changed as follows:
• Top 1% tax rates dropped from 37.0% to 31.2%, a numerical reduction of 5.8% and a proportional reduction of 15.6% (5.8/37.0).
• Top 10% tax rates dropped from 29.6% to 27.4%, a numerical reduction of 2.2% and a proportional reduction of 7.4%, less than half of the tax cut given to the top 1% in either numerical or proportional terms.
• All taxpayers (all quintiles) combined the tax rates for dropped from 22.2% down to 20.5%, a numerical reduction of 1.7% and a proportional reduction of 7.5%, again less than half the cut given to the top 1%.

The resulting has been an increasing concentration of after-tax income at the very top. During the same 1979 to 2005 period, per the CBO (p. 9):
• Top 1% after-tax household income rose from $326,400 to $1,071,500 -- a numerical increase of $745,100 and a proportional increase of 228.2%.
• Top 10% after-tax household income rose from $121,200 to $246,300, a numerical increase of $125,100 and a proportional increase of 103.2%, less than half of the top 1% increase in either numerical or proportional terms.
• All taxpayers combined saw household incomes increase from $46,400 to $67,400, a numerical increase of $21,000 and proportional increase of 45.2% -- a proportional increase less than one-fifth (19.8%) as large as the top 1%.
• 1st (bottom) quintile taxpayers saw household incomes increase from $14,400 to $15,300, a numerical increase of $900 and proportional increase of 6.2% -- a proportional increase representing only 2.7% as much as the 228.2% increase experienced by the top 1%.

This concentration of wealth at the top is also shown by changing proportional shares of total national income. During the same 1979 to 2005 period, per CBO (p.10), the total shares of national income have changed as follows:
• Top 1% share of total national income has increased from 7.5% to 15.6%, a numerical increase of 8.1% and a proportional increase of 108%. In other words, the regressive tax cuts have more than doubled the top 1% share of total national income.
• Top 10% share of total national income has increased from 27.6% to 37.4%, a numerical increase of 9.8% and proportional increase of 35.5%.
• The shares of national after-tax income claimed by the bottom 4 quintiles have dropped accordingly: 4th quintile from 22.3% to 20.6%, 3rd quintile from 16.5% to 14.4%, 2nd quintile from 12.3% to 9.6%, 1st quintile from 6.8% to 4.8%. For the 1st (bottom) quintile, that is a numerical decrease of 2.0%, but a proportional decrease of 29.4%.

Since you seem to be concerned that federal tax policy is overly generous to lower-income taxpayers, let's take another look at those numbers:
• While the top 1% of taxpayers increased their household incomes by $745,100 and 228.2%, the bottom 20% of taxpayers increased their household incomes by $900 and 6.2%.
• While the top 1% increased their share of total national income by 8.1% numerically and 108% proportionally, the bottom 20% saw their share of total national income fall by 2.0% numerically and 29.4% proportionally.
• During the same period, while the top 1% were obtaining large increases in both their household incomes and their share of total national income, they also obtained effective federal tax rate reductions of 5.8% numerically and 15.6% proportionally.

This significant concentration of wealth in the top 1% of the population, and to a lesser extent in the top 10% of the population, naturally led to an increase in the share of total federal tax revenues generated by the top 1% and top 10%. Per the GPO (p.5), even while the top 1% and top 10% were receiving disproportionate benefits from tax cuts, their share of the total national income was increasing so rapidly that they still produced an increasing share of tax revenue:
• Top 1% share of total federal tax liabilities rose from 15.4% to 27.6%, an increase of 12.2% numerically and 79.2% proportionally. In proportional terms, this was far less than the 228.2% proportional increase in household incomes and 108% increase in share of total national income that the top 1% obtained during the same period.
• Top 10% taxpayers went from 40.7% to 54.7% of the tax liabilities, an increase of 14.0% numerically and 34.3% proportionally. Put another way, even the top 10% of all taxpayers received far less benefit from federal tax cuts than the top 1% did.

If you are trying to persuade me that federal tax policy is unfair to high-income upper-bracket taxpayers, and that it is unfairly skewed to shower disproportionate benefits on low-income bottom-bracket taxpayers, you are not persuasive in the least.

I like cutting...taxes.

315: You get the "standing O," dawg. Great work! I always tell the overpaid whiners I know that if they resent their huge tax burden, they should take a job paying $50K a year. Somehow, they find it preferable to be Biglaw partners raking in more than $1 million per year, while they spend half their days surfing the Internet for vacation properties and luxury cars and berating the "underachievers" whom they support with all their 7-figure Web surfing. Barfbags.

@316, if you're trying to tell me that the Republican economic stimulus proposal ought to be compared to Freddy Krueger, your comment speaks for itself.

315, since you are so good with numbers, why don't you help us answer the original question. What percentage of American household pay zero or negative income tax?

Also, the data tells us that the top 1% saw their effective tax rates cut by 15.6% proportionately. What was the reduction in effective tax rate for the bottom quintile (bottom 20%)?
It's awfully curious that you left out this statistic for the bottom quintile in your first data grouping, while dwelling on the poor poor bottom quintile in all your other analysis.

By your selective quoting of statistics, you have just destroyed all your credibility.

314, if you are dying to have your taxes go up, you are free to send an extra check to the IRS. They won't turn it down if you insist nicely.

What is stopping you?

319: I don't claim to be good with numbers, but it looks to me like 40% of American households pay no federal income taxes. Of course, that entire population makes $30K or less annually. Assuming that most of those households are comprised of families trying to live on less than $30K per year, how much do you think they should be able to pay?

315/321, great, you've just helped us answer 311's original question. I imagine 40% is a bit higher than what he "suspected." But then again, 312 already answered the simple question, before you butted in with your tangential post.

315/321, now what was the proportional decline in the effective tax rate of the bottom quintile?

You did so well telling us that it was a 15.6% drop for the top 1%, which was more than the 7.5% drop for all taxpayers.

TYIA.

321 here (not 315, who clearly is better with numbers than I). Sorry about my "butting in" with my "tangential post," but why don't you answer my question? How much should a family making $30K or less pay in federal income taxes?

@319 -- Since you pose the question, the CBO tax data posted by 312 is rather interesting on the subject of the federal tax liabilities of the 1st (bottom) quintile of taxpayers.

Simply claiming that they pay no taxes is false. The CBO data show the following:
• Per CBO p.3, between 1979 and 2005 the effective federal social insurance tax rate (i.e. payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare) paid by the 1st (bottom) quintile of taxpayers increased from 5.3% to 8.3%, a numerical increase of 3.0% and a proportional increase of 56.6%.
• Per CBO p.4, between 1979 and 2005 the effective federal excise tax rate paid by the 1st (bottom) quintile of taxpayers increased from 1.6% to 2.1%, a numerical increase of 0.5% but a proportional increase of 31.2%.

Not too surprisingly, since the 1st (bottom) quintile of taxpayers was receiving a declining share of total national income during this period, and since they were paying increasing payroll and excise taxes which reduced their incomes still further, both their share of total federal tax liabilities and their effective overall federal tax rates declined during this period as follows:
• Per CBO p.5, the 1st (bottom) quintile share of total federal tax liabilities including income tax, as opposed to payroll or excise taxes, dropped from 2.1% to 0.8% during this period, a reduction of 1.3% numerically and 61.9% proportionally.
• Per CBO p.2, the 1st (bottom) quintile saw their total effective federal tax rate reduced from 8.0% in 1979 to 4.3% in 2005, a reduction of 3.7% numerically and 46.2% proportionally.

While you can advance an argument that the bottom quintile of taxpayers pay a somewhat lower share of total federal taxes than they used to, and that they pay less than the top 1% of taxpayers, it is simply not factually accurate to say that the bottom quintile pay no federal taxes. Regardless of whether their income is below or above the minimum threshhold to pay federal income tax, they pay both federal social insurance taxes (payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare) and federal excise taxes. Not only do they pay those taxes, but their payroll taxes have increased by 56.6% proportionally between 1979 and 2005, and their excise taxes have increased by 31.2% during the period in question.

Your view may differ, but my take on this is that the bottom quintile is getting hit so hard by the 56.6% proportional increase in their payroll taxes that they have far less remaining income to pay income taxes on than they used to, one of the reasons that so many of them fall below the minimum threshhold level at which income taxes begin to apply.

Even at the end of this period, in 2005, the average per-household after tax income of the 1st (bottom) quintile is a whopping $15,300 per year. I doubt that many of those posting on this thread would like to try to live on a total household income, including all dependents, of $15,300 per year.

These people are paying federal payroll and excise taxes. If your argument is that they should also be paying federal income taxes on an annual household income of $15,300, even following a period in which their share of total national income has declined sharply while the share of the top 1% has skyrocketed, I will leave it to others to evaluate your logic for themselves.

315/325: You just might be the smartest poster on this board. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, 319/322/323 comes up with in response to your latest post.

Speaking for myself only, I'm sorry if 319/322/323 was spared the ax on Bloody Thursday, but he might get caught up in the next round of firings. I'd love to see how he manages on a yearly income of $0 -- at least he will be able to take comfort in the fact that his tax burden will ease considerably.

You're good people.

325, please learn how the payroll/excise tax is not the income tax, which is what we're talking about in context of refundable income tax credits, and also how the payroll taxes are not a real tax as they are recouped when you retire, in proportion to your contributions, like forced retirement savings plan.

But you still haven't answered the question, of what was the proportional decline in the effective tax rate for the bottom quintile, after you have highlighted so helpfully for us the analogous numbers for the higher income groups. Also the numbers for the second bottom quintile.

effective income tax rates, I mean.
~327

326, so some people think the tax burden is not distributed properly and you wish them to get fired?
You must be a blast at parties where not everyone shares the same opinion.

329: 326 here. No, the people I'd wish to be fired are those who are in the top 5% of income earners but feel aggrieved that those families making an average of $15 freaking thousand dollars a year aren't paying their fair share of taxes, thus "hurting" those in the top 5%.

Whether or not I am a blast at parties is not subject to debate here.

#307. I apologize. I'm too distracted today. But, you are the one I was agreeing with, not #309, in my #313 post. You are correct and elegantly so, on all counts.
Relentlessly thinking and crying "What About Me?" is how we got in this mess.

What happens to one of us DOES happen to us all.

We need to raise taxes for the following reasons:

1. More taxes = more money for my government to spend

2. Government spending is the most effective way to increase GDP

3. So, more taxes = more government spending = higher GDP

You will come to learn that taxes are your friend. Those roads and bridges don't pay to fix themselves. You need us to survive.

"gwaaa... gwaaa..."

Mr. President (332), with respect to your, er, logic, item #2 is not only questionable but has been empirically shown to be false. Enjoy destroying America - the Democrats will no doubt have a lot of fun turning the U.S. into someplace with all of the downsides of Europe and none of the upsides, and by increasing the size of the government by double digits in a matter of weeks, have made a start that the rest of us couldn't possibly have imagined.

In fact, now that I think about it (334 continuing here), those of you who voted for a completely Democratic controlled government so that this could happen, remember what you did.

In 20 years, we will have double digit unemployment or close to it, just like other socialist countries where the government controls 50% of GDP. Just remember - you CHOSE this. Don't claim you didn't know - the facts on other socialist nations were obvious for all to see. And when you can't get medical care because medical care in socialized systems is necessarily rationed, remember - you CHOSE this. The facts were there, and you chose.

Like Obama says, yes you can, and yes you did. May g-d have mercy on us all.

@327 -- Your view that payroll deductions for Social Security and Medicare are not "real taxes" because there is an expectation of eventual benefits is not, from my perspective, one which most Americans would agree with.

Many American taxpayers, perhaps a majority, have more money taken out of their paychecks to meet their Social Security and Medicare obligations than they have federal income tax withheld. Because the payroll deductions for Social Security and Medicare are capped, and top out at a certain income point, this is something which many upper bracket taxpayers simply fail to grasp. I din't know the precise figure, but to the best of my current understanding, the cutoff point for the cap is somewhat lower than the income level which would place one in the top 10% of taxpayers. Since people in the top 10%, and especially those in the top 1%, are exempt from further Social Security and Medicare taxes above the maximum income level for those taxes, and it is their personal experience that their Social Security and Medicare taxes are considerably lower than their federal income tax withholding, they assume that Social Security and Medicare are minor taxes, and that the "real" tax is the federal income tax, on which there is no cap. This may be the subjective perception of the top 1% of taxpayers, or perhaps the top 10%, but it is not one which most Americans would agree with, because in their paychecks it is the other way around.

There is, of course, no guarantee that a given individual will ever receive benefits from these programs -- not because the programs are unreliable, but rather because it is entirely possible for someone to die before attaining the minimum age requirement for eligibility. For those who are not disabled and die younger than the minimum age, the payments they made basically stay in the pot for others.

Medicare is also an insurance program in which one must require medical services before receiving compensation, rather than a program where benefits are uniformly distributed to all enrollees on a uniform basis. Put another way, how much you get depends on how sick you are. If you don't get sick, you don't get paid.

Distinguishing between the income tax as a "real" tax and Social Security and Medicare as not being taxes on the grounds that the latter involve benefits, also disregards the benefits that all taxpayers receive from general federal expenditures. While you may not subjectively perceive these things as "benefits," you are defended militarily 24/7/365 by the US armed forces and intelligence agencies, some of whose members pay with their lives for your freedom to complain about paying money. You are also defended civilly 24/7/365 by the FBI, DOJ and Department of Homeland Security; protected against counterfeiting by the Secret Service; and protected against contaminated food and drugs by the FDA. When you get into a car, you get into a vehicle whose safety is improved by federal requirements, and you drive on roads and bridges designed and constructed with federal-aid funds, which cover many state and municipal as well as interstate facilities; and while capital costs for these are linked to federal excise taxes on fuels, there are other costs defrayed from other sources of funding. Every time you fly on an airliner, the things protecting your safety include not only the pilot, crew, manufacturer and operator of the aircraft, but also FAA air traffic controllers and lessons learned by NTSB investigators. While excise taxes on airfares pay for aviation capital facilities, that is not true of FAA or NTSB operational costs. If you are an urbanite and use mass transit, you certainly benefit from federal funding.

You may not think of these things as "benefits," but I wouldn't want to live without them, the federal government plays an essential role in providing them, and it can't do so without income tax revenue. Overall, most people probably receive a lot more in benefits from federal activities supported by income taxes than they do from programs such as Social Security and Medicare. To deny that requires one willfully to ignore the services that the federal government performs for all taxpayers on a daily basis, and often provides more reliably and cost-effectively than the private sector.

The answer to your question about the proportional decline in the effective tax rate is included in the middle of the information posted at #352. You simply didn't read the post carefully enough to find it. As one of the bullets in the middle of $325 indicates, the total effective federal tax rate for the bottom quintile dropped from 8.0% in 1979 to 4.3% in 2005, a reduction of 3.7% numerically and 46.2% proportionally.

You have also posed a question about the second quintile. I note that the data is readily available in the CBO data posted by #312, and that you haven't bothered to look it up for yourself. The answer to your question about the second quintile, though, is as follows:
• For second quintile taxpayers, after-tax incomes (CBO p.9) went from $29,100 in 1979 to $33,700 in 2005, an increase of $4,600 numerically and 15.8% proportionately (as compared with 228.2% for the top 1%).
• For second quintile taxpayers, their share of total social insurance tax liabilities (CBO p.6) declined slightly from 12.5% to 10.1%, and (CBO p.7) federal excise tax liabilities declined slightly from 15.0% to 14.4% of all such liabilities.
• For second quintile taxpayers, their total effective federal tax rate (CBO p.2) declined from 14.3% in 1979 to 9.9% in 2005, a reduction of 4.4% numerically and 30.7% proportionately.

If your point is that people in the second quintile, who are earning household incomes of $33,700 per year or less as of 2005, are paying less in taxes than top 1% taxpayers based on household incomes of $1,071,500 or more in 2005, that is no great surprise. The effective federal tax rate for the second quintile is 9.9 percent, and the effective federal tax rate for the top 1% is 31.2% (CBO p.2). Since the incomes of second quintile taxpayers are a great deal lower than those of the top 1%, the taxes they pay also generate less revenue -- second quintile taxpayers generate 4.1% of all federal tax liabilities, as opposed to 27.6% for the top 1% (CBO p.5).

If you think that people making a household income of $33,700 per year are making out like bandits and getting rich due to what you view as the inequities of the federal tax system, you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with it, and I don't think the numbers support that conclusion.

As I understand it, the rationale for the tax aspects of the Obama administration's economic stimulus proposal is that the maximum economic benefit from the stimulus will be realized if the money is spent rather than saved, and the people most likely to be compelled by circumstance to spend anything they get from the plan would probably be people in the first quintile earning $15,300 per year or less, and those in the second quintile earning $33,700 per year or less. They would have more pressing reasons to spend any stimulus payment on food, fuel, clothes and rent than top 1% taxpayers with household incomes of $1,071,500 and up.

If you object to this on the grounds that it involves a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, you are entitled to your opinion. The point of this plan is not to achieve perfect social fairness, but to stimulate the economy by getting people to start spending some money, in order to reinvigorate business by increasing sales volumes.

If it works, those who benefit will include not only those receiving federal payments, but also upper bracket taxpayers who derive increased income from improved business, even if they have to pay a larger portion of the up-front costs. If it doesn't work, we'll all be in deep soup.

I am not advocating a socialist economy, and I don't think most Democrats are either. In the long run, the private sector of a capitalist economy is the most effective in generating income and providing goods and services for society. The problem is that in the short run, the private sector economy has ground to a halt and is slowly collapsing, due to credit and solvency problems caused by excessive risks incurred by business management -- some of it, perhaps, encouraged by federal legislation, but the majority of it attributable to recklessness motivated by the prospect of large bonuses, and subject to few if any meaningful restraints due to deregulation.

I don't advocate big government for the sake of big government, and I don't advocate ending private sector incentives to spur economic growth and development. The private sector has damaged itself so badly, however, that tax cuts alone won't get us out of the hole we are in. Only government spending can do so, by putting enough money back in circulation to get the economy going again. If we rely solely on tax cuts to do the job, then we're in for a replay of the 1930s.

Nonsense, you DO advocate big government for it's own sake, since you voted for Nanci Pelosi and Barbara Boxer and Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer to control the legislature, and in the executive branch, when choosing between a 45th percentile centrist and party-line-crosser on the one hand, and a 95th percentile left winger on the other (ranking Senators from most right at 1 to most left at 100), you chose the left wing extremist. The results that will follow are entirely predictable; do not try to disclaim the inevitable results now. YOU CHOSE.

@337 -- Yes, I voted for Barack Obama. No, I didn't vote for Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer or Barney Frank. I don't live in the districts or states that they represent, so I wasn't eligible to do so, and I'm not overly enamored with them in any event. If you think that Barack Obama is a left-wing extremist, though, you are completely clueless as to what a left-wing extremist really is. He isn't even remotely close to being one. He's a graduate of two Ivy League schools, a relatively moderate centrist Democrat, and a pragmatist who is clearly more interested in getting things done than in getting everything he wants. He left a great many more liberal Democrats rather disappointed about the things which the economic stimulus bill didn't end up including, but he came up with enough votes in both houses to get a version passed in both houses that he would be willing to sign. If you think that he is some left-wing nut who wants to turn the US into a socialist country, you simply haven't been paying any attention to what is actually in the stimulus bill, or to what was omitted. If you want to fulminate because you imagine him to be someone other than he is, go ahead. I will leave it to others to assess for themselves your credibility in doing so.

307 for president!!! Obama - thanks for the extra $13 bucks a week that'll be going into my pocket from your tax cut. I'll be able to upgrade to shrimp flavored ramen noodles now!!

338, your half-denials are transparent. You voted Democrat down the ticket, knowingly turning over control, and if you HAD been in Pelosi's or Frank's district, you would have voted for them over a Republican. You got what you wanted - your legislature and your president managed to spend in a few weeks 33% more than the federal budget for 2008.

Want to argue that including the TARP and other expenditures it's only 1/4, or some other large two digit percentage? Fine.

The result is the same - the most massive and rapid expansion in the scope and size of the government in our history. You voted to empower it in accordance with the so-called Democratic party platform, everyone knew what they wanted to do, now we will all live with the results you chose.

Yeah, I'd say working at Quinn looks ok right about now. [knocks on, er, pounds wood into submission]

340 - Rush, is that you?

You need to decide what you stand for - GOODNESS, or BADNESS

120- I work IN the mailroom, and two of my co-workers were fired from there today (along with many others across the firm). A sad day all around...

342 - Nope, he sucks as well - just saddened by the end of the American dream.

Were you saving for a house like I was? 'Cause on top of increasing gov't share of GDP to European socialist levels in just a few weeks, Obama just decided to pay huge $ for someone else's house, artificially inflating prices to keep irresponsible people in homes they can't pay for, using my tax dollars to keep me from being able to buy and give that home to someone else.

Two digit unemployment, rationed health care and drastic increases in tax rates are coming - remember this in 20 years, you voted for it. I'm looking forward to not working though - if earners & savers are the enemy and to be bled dry, no reason to work 10 hours a day to be in that class. Bring on the dole - I've had enough.