This Week In Layoffs: 10.04.09
Ed. note: Above the Law has teamed up with Law Shucks. Law Shucks has done excellent work translating all of the layoff news into user-friendly charts and graphs: the Layoff Tracker.
For a while there it would look like the first consecutive weeks without layoffs since this time last year (by our reckoning, you have to go back to the weeks ending October 9 and October 2, 2008). Alas, one firm did come through with staff layoffs, about which more after the jump.
As usual, we begin with the US macroeconomic picture, and as usual, it ain’t pretty. For the week, the S&P 500 was down about 2%. That was the second straight week of losses, and the DJIA had its biggest weekly decline in three months. 263,000 net jobs were lost in September and the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent, despite perhaps the technical end of the recession. As with the stock market, bad results are one thing, but results worse than expectations are another, and that was the case here. Consensus estimates were net losses of 175,000, so the actual results were way short. August’s revised numbers were slightly better than original reports, though.
The poor results are creating pessimism around when things will start to turn around:
[T]he report also buttressed fears that economic expansion would be weak and hesitant, with scarce paychecks and economic anxiety remaining prominent features of American life well into next year.“This is a weak report,” said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh. “The rate of job loss has tapered off, but we still haven’t reached the point where businesses are willing to hire.”
Could this create political difficulties for the president?
If things don’t start getting better soon, even the Times recognizes this will pose problems for President Obama:
For Democrats, a slow recovery — and an unemployment rate at a 26-year high — could quickly become a liability, if businesses are not hiring by next year’s mid-term elections.The Obama administration has said job losses would be even worse without the tax credits and spending projects from the $787 billion stimulus, but Republicans have pilloried the programs as ineffective.
Closer to home, lawyers aren’t alone in feeling one side effect of the extended joblessness:
On Thursday, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, nodded at the problems that long-term unemployment creates for workers, saying that they risk losing skills and becoming less employable if they detach from the labor force.
This week’s only true law-firm layoff news came from Cooley Godward, which laid off 58 staffers, bringing its total to 192 this year (72 lawyers and 120 staff) in three waves.
In non-firm layoff news, Citigroup confirmed that its law department is down by about 300, many of which were as a result of layoffs, and some lawyers have been hit with salary reductions of as much as 60%.
It’s a big technicality, but rescinded offers don’t count as layoffs for the Law Shucks Layoff Tracker. That spares Chicago’s Wildman Harrold from making a repeat appearance, as it has rescinded its offers to ten of 14 already-deferred associates (a copy of one victim’s letter is available at Law Shucks, by the way). Those ten got hit with a double whammy: the news came from the firm within hours after bar exam results came out, curtailing any celebration; and they’re not getting any additional payment, like Arent Fox gave. Of course, the $20k in deferral comp is already far more than most people outside BigLaw would ever see for their troubles anyway.
Chadbourne & Parke is also extending the deferrals for half of its class to some indefinite time in the future. Half will start in January, and half will get $60,000 to sit on the sidelines, hoping and waiting for a callup.
Meanwhile, just across town from Wildman, Katten Muchin is moving its incoming associates’ start dates up. Six lucky graduates will be starting this month, rather than waiting until February 1, 2010 like the remaining 40 in the class.
And to make matters worse, the unspoken stigma of having been laid off is percolating to the surface. RollOnFriday reports "blatant and widespread discrimination throughout [London] against lawyers who have been made redundant." American firms are supposedly the worst offenders.
The class of 2010 continues to take shot for shot in the race for the title of "Worst Year to Graduate Law School." Instead of deferrals and rescissions, they’re facing canceled OCI (even Harvard is reporting interviewing down 20%) and historically low offer rates from summer programs. This week, Schulte gave offers to only two-thirds of its summers, but compare that with the optimism of its website, which reports the summer program going back to 11 weeks at a pro-rated $160,000 salary. Bingham McCutchen is also expecting to make offers at about the same rate.
The final numbers for the week are available at Law Shucks.
Also keep an eye on the site on Monday for the "This Month in Layoffs - September" roundup.




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
first
I'm curious to see what law firms will do if things suddenly and drastically turn around. There seems to be a complete lack of foresight in this laid-off / deferred approach. It continues to amaze me that a fairly logic-driven profession (yes, I know the counter quote from Holmes) acts so irrationally.
As we speak another douchetard class has entered into the many, many, many TTT law schools populating this country seduced by the ridiculously inflated employment report put out by the deceiving schools. This class will be graduating in 3 years with a mountain of debt and bleak job prospects. Good job ABA - the worst organization since organizations were formed. What a load of crap.
mcdermott let people go last week
2 - It's easier for them to ramp up now through the use of temp lawyers. No need to bring people on staff unless it's absolutely necessary.
What's going on at Milbank?
The article is right. If the economy doesn't turn around, the Democrats will get HOSED in the midterm elections.
It's like 1994 all over again.
Agree with 5. Unfortunately, I think firms (biglaw, anyway) will rely on temp attorneys when things pick up, and perhaps hire a few staff attorneys if things get really busy. Its unfortunate, but when there is such a supply of contract attorneys willing to work on a temporary basis, it would make sense for the firms to use that resource.
I don't mean to be pessimistic, just realistic.
4
Lawyers or staff? Or both? Where were they located?
Milbank has actually been very busy lately. Who knows whether it will last, but right now everybody I know at the firm is absolutely flooded with work.
"It ain't pretty. For the week, the S&P 500 was down about 2%. That was the second straight week of losses, and the DJIA had its biggest weekly decline in three months."
Really? Put that in the context of the unbelievable gains that both indexes had over the past several months. Ya'll are lawyers, not bankers. But still. Yo'u've basically created a (false) story out of two data points by leaving out the context.
11 - You seem to have forgotten that ATL wants the legal industry to remain in ruins, or at least, young lawyers and students to remain nervous, scared, and desperate for any tidbits of information on firms. Stories have been coming slow lately because the ATL crew is busy clamping their hands over their ears and screaming, "There are not any green shoots. There are not any green shoots."
12 - Thanks for sharing your perspective. I'd like to see ATL's month-to-month ad revenues over the past two years. They're probably as counter-cyclical as a restructuring practice. Only, restructurings can linger for several years. The nervousness and trepidation of students, on the other hand, is quick to fade.
12, 13 -
Unfortunately, I don't see the nervousness fading any time soon. The bad news for BIGLAW will continue to poor in, and ATL will reap the benefits.
14 - I'm sure it will continue for some time, but it has already stopped "poring in." A few offers rescinded here, a few staffers laid off there. It's nothing like it was a few months ago, and ATL is trying to figure out how to stay relevant.
pour
Law school administrators are continuing to perpetuate the scam to the unsuspecting students currently enrolled. I attended an alumni event and heard the law school dean address the students. The silver tongued lying bastard told students not to believe the economic inidicators and that they are lucky to ride out the recession in law school. He also said that the economy is already rebounding and basically sold the prior classes down the river by saying that recent grads will receive preferential hiring treatment (complete bs). He also told 3Ls that an LLM may be a sound idea in order to ride out the tail end of the recession and command a higher entry level associate salary. I almost puked at this event and the students I observed were on the edge of their seats during the dean's speech. I really feel sorry for these kids. All that debt and no future.
Blame the ABA.
Bottom Line: the ABA is approving, and has approved,
Bottom Line: the ABA has approved, and is approving, WAY TOO MANY law schools. Which means, in turn, that there are too many lawyers being produced for not enough positions....which means, in turn, that lawyers salaries are defalted (supply and demand).
We have too many law schools in this country. Why doesn't the ABA recognize that?
As a concrete example, Philadelphia is a good one. It already had Villanova, Rutgers Camden, UPenn, and Temple in the metro area.
So, Drexel comes along a year ago or so and wants a new law school. The ABA should simply say "NO! We have too many already in that area."
Of course, Drexel is currently getting ABA approval. The process is maddening and ridiculous.
The ABA accredits too many law schools at the same time they allow so-called "lawyers" in foreign countries to practice law in the U.S. If the ABA continues that policy they will lose their power to regulate the education (and other aspects) of lawyers handling legal matters in this country. They're obviously not concerned about the future of the profession. Moreover, they're not even concerned about their own self-preservation.
5, 8: you're right actually. I'm temping now. When I interviewed for the position, the manager asked if I'd be interested in quasi-permanent positions since I'm a former big law associate.
It makes business sense I suppose but it's heartless really. But that's my mistake for assuming Big Law ever had a heart.
"I almost puked at this event and the students I observed were on the edge of their seats during the dean's speech. I really feel sorry for these kids. All that debt and no future."
17- question, did you tell any of the student that?
The legal industry is filled with people who will sit back and won't stick their necks out when they hear that sort of stuff, so don't take this as much a criticism, but - were you different?
"But that's my mistake for assuming Big Law ever had a heart."
I have sympathy for you--honestly, I do. And chances are I hate the people you hate.
But did you really think Big Law had a heart? Really? At all?
I guess what I'm getting at, that drives nuts, is that as someone who had a hard time getting a job I'm continually amazed by how naive a lot big law associates are about the legal market. I'll perfectly concede that what has happened to a lot of people is unfair--it's just that a lot these same people didn't seem to want to acknowledge this unfairness at all (when it came to people who were having more trouble than them) until it was their turn to get whacked. Now it's a crime against humanity.
Maybe you're different, but a lot seem to have had trouble viewing all of this from outside their own situation. It makes it harder for people not to just respond "it's your turn."
Eh, sorry for the typos
- 24
23, 17 here.
Do you think the students would listen to me? After all, these students are part of the generation that were sold on "hope and change." I have told several college grads to go into another fields but their souls have already been seduced by the delusions of big money and a prestigious career. Do you think these students want to hear that the gravy train is gone, left the station, never to come back? These kids are still hanging on to the dream that will gradually turn into a nightmare as many young lawyers are starting to or have already discovered.
Part of my backstory is that I come from a blue-collar family. Working hard meant something. White-collar worlds don't really care about working hard. They want you to work smart. And sometimes that means not doing the "right" thing.
I guess I figured that, like the "old days," the partnership would care about the career development of the associates they brought on board. That the firm would do its best to mentor you. In all honesty, I don't know if that's how it's ever been. Maybe it's just Hollywood that filled me with those images: Tom Hanks in Philadelphia before the partners found out Hanks' character had AIDS; Gordon Gekko taking young Sheen under his wing, sending him out for new clothes, and on and on.
No, I didn't think anyone would be buying me new clothes, but I also thought that some partner would reach out to the new class and guide us as we grew into seasoned attorneys. Instead, when times got tough, the tossed us out with the trash. I guess there's just been a disconnect between the messages sent (care packages while studying for the bar; holiday packages) and those received.
Part of my backstory is that I come from a blue-collar family. Working hard meant something. White-collar worlds don't really care about working hard. They want you to work smart. And sometimes that means not doing the "right" thing.
I guess I figured that, like the "old days," the partnership would care about the career development of the associates they brought on board. That the firm would do its best to mentor you. In all honesty, I don't know if that's how it's ever been. Maybe it's just Hollywood that filled me with those images: Tom Hanks in Philadelphia before the partners found out Hanks' character had AIDS; Gordon Gekko taking young Sheen under his wing, sending him out for new clothes, and on and on.
No, I didn't think anyone would be buying me new clothes, but I also thought that some partner would reach out to the new class and guide us as we grew into seasoned attorneys. Instead, when times got tough, the tossed us out with the trash. I guess there's just been a disconnect between the messages sent (care packages while studying for the bar; holiday packages) and those received.
27/28 exemplifies the problem with today's law students. When you graduate the following are not guaranteed:
1) A corner office
2) Instant 6 figures in your savings account
3) Partners grooming you either personally or professionally
4) Partnership in 6 years
5) An S class Mercedes Benz
6) Trophy wife
7) An estate at the Hamptons
Hollywood has tainted the realism of the legal profession. Was it ever that way? Perhaps in the '80s but those days (Reagan Era) are a distant memory to the nightmare we have now (Obama Era).
Is it a coincidence that as Obama's political capital and support depletes, the economy improves? We started to see signs of a rebound when Obama's freight train style politicking was first derailed. Now the rebound is tepid as we wait to see if Obama will ever accomplish anything of significance.
"Do you think the students would listen to me?"
Nah, I don't think many would -- which is why I didn't intend that to be much of a criticism. It's pretty futile.
I just think they have to be called on it, though, if this is going to change.
-23
29 - 27/28 is not asking for 6 out of 7 of those things. Stating a hope/expectation for partners assisting with professional development is not the same thing as thinking you are guaranteed a trophy wife, estate, or fancy car.
I personally do not think that some measure of professional mentoring is something that is completely out of line to expect - especially when firms like mine spend a lot of time developing charts that show the "core competencies" they expect associates to develop by certain years. Yes, associates are responsible for seeking out assignments to develop, but partners should also be responsible for making sure associates get those assignments that they are seeking.
- Not 27/28
Like the rest of the America there isn't much of a middle class in the law. People on this blog went from "having everything" to poverty because of loans, salary expectations, pricey leases. Doctors don't have this problem.
29 -
Back in the 80s young associates had everything you mentioned and more. It was truly an amazing time to be a lawyer, as others have noted.
As an 80s guy, I'm not a political dude. But anyone can see that the Obama is destroying the foundation of our once great profession. Young Obama rejected BIGLAW. He had the option but decided to pursue his socialist agenda instead, with the hope that it would lead him to the oval office. This decision guides his every move to this day.
Hopefully one day we will elect someone like Reagan who will usher in a new golden age for BIGLAW. I'm not optimistic but who knows.
Give me a break. I assume you're nothing but a flame, but Obama is as responsible for big law dumping associates as I am for the conflict in Korea.
If endless tax cuts, starving the infrastructure, and starting two wars at once could really stimulate the economy, we'd all be sitting pretty. It didn't work. Now we fix it. And it will take longer than 10 months.
"If endless tax cuts"
On what planet did we have endless tax cuts in the last eight years? More importantly, on what planet did federal revenue decrease? It wasn't this one.
You know what I really can't understand? How is anyone surprised that there are no jobs now? Everyone on both sides of the political debate has been predicting this will be a jobless recovery for ONE FULL YEAR.
The damned economy fell off a goddamned cliff. We rolled back protections, ignored a growing disparity, and waited for a trickle down effect that never came. High unemployment is hardly a surprise. Sheesh. Read a newspaper, and not just the headlines, and not just the US stories,
China implemented a stimulus, and their economy is roaring again (the fact that their economy is export driven also helps them, and our lack of exports is dragging us down.) Japan, on the other hand, wasted a decade trying to find free market solutions.
God 36. Read a CBO report. "On what planet did revenue decrease?" THIS ONE YOU MORON.
The deficit is due to decreased revenue, because of lowered tax receipts, which the CBO (nonpartisan) credited to the weakened economy.
\
Turn off Fox News. Go to the government's website. And start reading the actual budget (which features $636 BILLION for defense this year alone) before you start trying to sound smart.
God 36. Read a CBO report. "On what planet did revenue decrease?" THIS ONE YOU MORON.
The deficit is due to decreased revenue, because of lowered tax receipts, which the CBO (nonpartisan) credited to the weakened economy.
Turn off Fox News. Go to the government's website. And start reading the actual budget (which features $636 BILLION for defense this year alone) before you start trying to sound smart.
And the Bush tax cuts cost $1.3 trillion - that's 12 zeroes, if you're counting. The entire deficit this year is $1.6 trillion. Ya think one might have a little something to do with the other?
Yo,
1997
Estimated receipts for fiscal year 1997 are $1.495 trillion
Spending for FY1997 totals: $1.635 trillion
2008
Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2008 were $2.66 trillion
2009
Total Revenue $2.7 trillion (estimated)
--------
1. The revenue that the government takes in did not decrease.
2. Deficits are not caused by declining revenues. That is not the definition of a deficit, you idiot. They are caused by taking in less than you spend. Now, this *can* be due to declining revenues, but was not the case in the United States over the past three decades.
3. If we merely spent what we did in '97, we'd have a massive surplus right now.
4. If you want to blame the war on this, that comes out to about $200 billion a year. A lot? Yes. Does it make up the difference? No.
5. "And the Bush tax cuts cost $1.3 trillion - that's 12 zeroes, if you're counting. The entire deficit this year is $1.6 trillion. Ya think one might have a little something to do with the other?"
Oh, gee, I guess it had nothing to do with the hundreds of billions of stimilus money your politicians and ours are tossing around (and please provide me a citation that that's $1.3 trillion per year as opposed to over the course of his presidency).
The problems with liberals is that they avoid open debate with the other side so much they become clueless as to how little they know. Take an economics class.
1) A corner office = Nope. Never planned on being there that long.
2) Instant 6 figures in your savings account = Instant? No. That's silly.
3) Partners grooming you either personally or professionally = yes, definitely. Especially when that's what they pitched.
4) Partnership in 6 years = See #1
5) An S class Mercedes Benz = well, I must admit to a few "The Firm"-esque daydreams, but beyond that no.
6) Trophy wife = I'm gay so that's a big N/A here.
7) An estate at the Hamptons = See #1.
I agree though that Hollywood has tainted the practice of law. Lawyers have been recast as rich powerbrokers and not engineers of social change (think Founding Fathers, Brown v. Board & Civil Rights, etc.) Instead now the law school machine pushes students into the on-campus interview process. I was one of them. I drank the kool-aid with the best of them. But hindsight is 20/20 for everyone. And putting aside the economic perks that might have been irrational to someone to expect or hope for, echoing 32, it's not irrational to expect someone to reach a hand out to you to help guide you. If that's truly changed, then there's not much hope for humanity . . . or at least not for lawyers.
Maybe if you were planning on being there long enough to maybe get a corner office the partners would have had an interest in grooming you.
43: If you knew anything about law firm management and the amount of money they spend on recruiting, training, and retaining younger lawyers then you'd see how backwards your statement is. The onus should be on the partnership to foster interest in us to stay. But it's exactly the other way around. And therein lies the problem. It's the golden ring on the merry-go-round and we're all expected to reach for it but we can't because they only extend it to those they want around.
I found it quite eye-opening that with the first round of layoffs the firm nearly depleted its minority and female associates. But the straight, white men stayed on. I don't want to take this discussion down that path, but it's an interesting observation. Perhaps partners don't know how to relate and reach out to people who are so different than themselves. Ever think of that?
I agree with your first paragraph IF you decided that you wouldn't be staying for long after you saw that you wouldn't be groomed. Otherwise, they simply called it right and didn't waste their time on someone that never planned on staying.
As for firing minorities, I'm sure those that would have been there even without AA remained after the round of layoffs you speak of. Ever think of that?
44 -- I have not seen this at my firm, but rather the complete opposite. At my vault 25ish firm, I only interviewed one straight white male (did about a dozen interviews), and he literally had straight As. Firm is going out of its way to continue checking the minority boxes even in a time of diminished hiring. The hiring conversations I have heard of are really quite shocking. My advice to any straight white guys out there -- pretend to be gay -- it WILL help your chances.
"They are caused by taking in less than you spend. Now, this *can* be due to declining revenues, but was not the case in the United States over the past three decades."
You're an idiot. If I make $30,000 a year every year for 10 years, but due to increasing obligations, I owe $40,000 a year, my budget is screwed unless I get a raise. Our deficit is due to declining revenue, with a little flourish of spiraling health care costs, oh, and it seems like we have a war or two around here somewhere.....
The top tax rate is now 35%, during the Clinton years, the last time we had a surplus, it was 39%. We started the year. Bush left office with a $1 trillion deficit already in place, because we take in less than we are legally obligated to spend.
"They are caused by taking in less than you spend. Now, this *can* be due to declining revenues, but was not the case in the United States over the past three decades."
You're an idiot. If I make $30,000 a year every year for 10 years, but due to increasing obligations, I owe $40,000 a year, my budget is screwed unless I get a raise. Our deficit is due to declining revenue, with a little flourish of spiraling health care costs, oh, and it seems like we have a war or two around here somewhere.....
The top tax rate is now 35%, during the Clinton years, the last time we had a surplus, it was 39%. We started the year. Bush left office with a $1 trillion deficit already in place, because we take in less than we are legally obligated to spend.
How do you propose to cut spending? You want to eliminate Medicare? Have you noticed the old people being ok with that at all? Or maybe we could stop spending on two wars? That would be $1 trillion saved right there. But have you seen a lot of support for that in the Republican party?
The only way to actually cut spending is to cut the amount we have to spend on healthcare. But no. Conservatives seem to think there's a magic fairy out there, named Laffer of course, who really will come if you close your eyes and clap hard.....
Keep clapping. Dumbass. If you actually sat your but down for 20 minutes and read the CBO report, you'd get it. But I'm not holding my breath.
The Iraq war alone has already cost $1.2 trillion, we're spending a half trillion a year on defense, and conservatives act like, "What happened! We're spending so much money..."
29/34...
The most recent equivalent of what we're going through right now happened in '83...Reagan administration, in case you can't remember. Reagan's popularity plummeted to 35%. Then things got better, as they will again...sometime in 2011. That will be just perfect for Obama's reelection in 2012.
So, yeah. Obama's doing just fine for having taken over during one of the worst economic crises in the history of the country.
You conservatives are going to have to put up with Obama for 8 long years. The country will prosper, as it did under Clinton and Reagan, and Obama will go down in history as one of the great Presidents of all time.
Keep on a-complainin', it ain't gonna change a thing.
"Our deficit is due to declining revenue..."
Our revenue didn't decline you raving moron
How I'm supposed to take anything else you say seriously when you dance around that fact is beyond me.
Our revenue was a much lower figure. It's now a much higher figure. I realize lawyers have a reputation for being bad at math, but Jesus Christ--you're an idiot.
You disputed something. I showed you what you said is factually inaccurate, you dumbass. End of discussion.
As far as the Iraq war, I said "$200 billion per year." The $1.2 trillion is not the amount of money we spent but the high end of the estimated cost for the entire thing spread out over each year. It does not account for that dramatic a rise in the increase in spending per year.
As far as that dramatic rise in the increase in spending per year, here's an idea that may not have occurred to you being a liberal: spend less.
Hell, don't even spend less, just quit increasing spending.
Of course, I guess you could go with option 2 which is eliminate our entire budget for defense which seems to be popular a lot of the time with Democrats for some reason, but some parts of the country aren't interested in having you guys lose yet another war.
You said revenue had declined. I showed it hadn't. Quit being a dumbass, man up, and admit you were wrong.
There are few people as stupid as those who won't admit when they're wrong and those who won't recognize what they know little about.
You didn't even know what the freakin' definition of a "deficit" is and here I am taking you seriously.
I have been a lawyer since the golden era of the '80s. I will lay out one fact and let you draw your conclusions about the Democrats when they are in power. The last two beatings our legal profession sustained was in the mid '90s and right now. Who was president during those times? Clinton and Obama. Any questions?
Correct 52. I really want Obama to be successful because a rising tide floats all boats, but I do not think the Dems -- especially the leaders in Congress -- can pull it off.
52 - just one -- don't you think there would have been as many, if not more, layoffs if the McCain/Palin ticket had been elected? They would not have approved the bank bailout, which would have resulted in bankruptcy of AIG and at least one of the major banks (Citibank most likely) in the name of free market economics. What would that have done to the capital markets, the consumer credit market and the millions of people insured through AIG?
52...
The recession in the mid 90's was nothing compared to this.
The closest thing we've seen in recent memory was in the early 80's....Reagan. Please see my post above.
And to be factually accurate, the recession began on President Bush's watch, so your description is wrong in the first place.
53...
I, for one, appreciate your willingness to at least concede that you would like to see Obama succeed. You...in the words of the conservative hero Sean Hannity...are a great American.
"Our revenue didn't decline you raving moron"
You need to read a budget. You freak. It's in the freaking CBO REPORT SPELLED OUT FOR ANY MORON WHO CAN GET OVER THE PARTISAN TALKING POINTS AND JUST READ THE DAMN THING ALREADY.
1) We had a $1 trillion dollar deficit on January 1, a good two and a half weeks BEFORE Obama was even sworn in.
2) The CBO credits the deficit we are running to declining tax revenue, which is due to declining profits, which is due to the economy falling of a cliff. Health care obligations also play a part, but not as big a role as the damn defense budget.
3) The CBO creates its report by examining current legal obligations - again, these were set by LAST YEAR'S administration. These cost outlays are measured against current and projected revenue, based on current tax laws.
Seriously, it takes 20 minutes. You don't have to agree with the progressive fiscal stimulus, but you do need to know how the report is generated, and how much of our current situation was already set before Obama took office.
"If we merely spent what we did in '97, we'd have a massive surplus right now."
Yes. In fact, we were projected to have a nearly $1 trillion surplus for fiscal year 2009 in fiscal year 2001. Unfortunately, some things, like war and healthcare, cost the country a lot more than they did in 1997. And corporations pay the country a lot less of their earnings than they did then.
I wish the country were back in the Clinton years too, but there was this little 8-year interlude where wages fell, taxes were cut, profits spiraled upward, AND NONE OF IT WAS PASSED ON TO THE GOVERNMENT.
The government just got stuck with the problems, while everyone waited for increasing profits and bonuses to trickle down and lift all boats. Somehow, a few boats were left behind, and the government is stuck with the bill:, 44 million uninsured, an aging population, and a consumer demand based economy supported by consumers who make 20% less in real wages than they did 15 years ago.
You don't have to agree with Dems, but you need to understand Laffer curve theory, and compare it to what did and did not happen during the last eight years. You seem to have some gaps.
Dumbass, you said we had a decrease in revenue and I pointed out to you we didn't have a decrease in revenue.
Now you're tossing all the shit you can against a wall to see what sticks all so you don't have to admit the one simple point I argued with you -- we didn't have a decrease in revenue.
So now I'm supposed to argue all these other things just so you can change the subject from the most obvious instance of you not knowing what you're talking about.
If you can't get something this simple right and can't admit when you're wrong, you can't expect me to respect your opinion.
You said something that was complete bullshit. You've been called on it. Now you're metaphorically covering up your ears yelling "la la la, I'm not listening."
If you want me to argue all this other stuff with you that you're getting wrong, I'll start right now saying that $1.6 trillion does not equal $3 trillion in 2009 dollars. Saying we didn't have 100% inflation over a period of twelve years shouldn't need a cite but I get the feeling with you it may.
As far as the other stuff, again, this may be difficult for you to comprehend as a liberal, but there's always the option of cutting spending...or even...oh I don't know...just not increasing it. No one was holding a gun to the head of your congressmen and ours (see, that's the sign of an intellectually honest argument, I'm willing to criticize my own side) making them increase spending 100%.
And while you can blame some of this on the war, the bulk of it comes from Democratic social programs.
You said something that's as factually accurate as 2+2=5. We didn't have a decline in revenue. Period. Toss in all the tangents you want, you idiot, we didn't. This is a basic undebated fact.
You're a moron.
Getting back to real issues, I think 15 has it right. Page views for ATL must decline substantially when the legal market is middling along rather than booming (when bonuses and compensation increases are all the rage) or busting (when layoffs, deferrals, and pay freezes are all the rage). ATL is in dangerous territory right now because it has never really existed in a middling economy--it's always been boom or bust since ATL started up.
But If bonuses are going to be mild and layoffs cease, there's not going to be a lot of reason to click on ATL, certainly not on a daily basis. If you look at the past month, you'll already find that market-related news is dwindling and ATL has turned more to "Lawyer of the Day" gossip and other mostly trivial fare to fill its pages.
I would expect ATL to hang on to the "end of Biglaw as we know it" meme long after the recovery has taken hold. Right now, evidence of recovery is anecdotal but the fact that it even exists suggests some improvement, however small.
Once the Class of 2009 deferrals have been sorted out early next year, I'd expect ATL to shift its focus more toward law students because the boom and bust hysteria that has drawn actual lawyers into ATL's readership over the last two years is going to have run dry for some time to come.
ATL = Bush Administration fear mongering for the legal community?
I think yes.
54, I think if McCain were president, he would not have allowed a large bank to fail. He is a free marketer but not as doctrinal as many republicans. Just like Obama as not done all he said he would (did you see SNL?) because he has gained new insight on the trade offs that would come with his agenda (no one wants terrorists in their state), the same thing would have happened with McCain.
I just want to wish Justice Ginsburg good luck- we're all counting on her.
60 -
Could you please explain what you mean by "once the Class of 2009 deferrals have been sorted out early next year". Are you suggesting that the January starters will only learn their fate in 2010? Do we need to wait until January 1 to know whether we will start on January 15?
For the love of god we need some clarity from our firms NOW!!!
Last week, for firms that did "stealth layoffs" earlier in the year, it was the last day for a lot of people. But where was ATL?
Also stealth layoffs at Nixon Peabody last week. 2 associates in SF office confirmed.
65 - Well, if you're referring to Hogan, ATL did report on that in the summer. I think September was the deadline for the midlevels. Does anyone know if most of those people found jobs?
Firms will probably hold off the layoff stick until the end of year review, if their balance sheet is not so dire as to warrant immediate blood. Why lay someone off when you can terminate "for performance reasons as a part of our regular review process." Watch out merry Christmas and happy new year.
Also they won't want to drop any bombshells before 2010's accept their offer. For all the 2010's that's going to be deferred, the firms would still like to have a list of potential hires should things unexpectedly pickup.
65 here -- no, was not talking about Hogan, specifically. I know ATL was on the ball when the "stealth layoffs" first went into effect, but the actual "layoffs" didn't take place until last week, so it's impossible to tell how many dropped at, yes, Hogan, and a few others.
69 - Well, ATL seems determined to ignore the activities at certain firms. Look at how they went after practically every big firm in Texas, but ignored V&E, despite a ton of people calling them out on this board.
"You said something that's as factually accurate as 2+2=5. We didn't have a decline in revenue. Period. "
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on not putting together "Economic near-collapse" with "DECLINING REVENUE FROM TAXES."
Perhaps the word "revenue" confused you. Let's call it "taxes" and let's assume you are capable of understanding the following: "People and corporations who make less money pay less in taxes." Also, "People and corporations make less money when the economy goes into freefall."
Did you get that? Are we on the same page yet? Now let's put it all together: People pay less taxes when the economy crashes. The CBO report is based on current revenue. Revenue is declining.
You freaking moron.
If you want to be a fiscal conservative, FINE. But learn how the CBO report is calculated. And, for extra credit, maybe try to figure out what would have happened to our debt repayment terms if the fiscal stimulus hadn't been passed, and the system had been left to stabilize itself. Do you think our debtors would have like that?
Libertarians are the stupidest. Sheesh. Learn to read. Every single government report, along withe the information you need to understand it, is online. There's no excuse for you insisting three times that revenue did not decline WHEN THE ECONOMY CRASHED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"You said something that's as factually accurate as 2+2=5. We didn't have a decline in revenue. Period. "
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on not putting together "Economic near-collapse" with "DECLINING REVENUE FROM TAXES."
Perhaps the word "revenue" confused you. Let's call it "taxes" and let's assume you are capable of understanding the following: "People and corporations who make less money pay less in taxes." Also, "People and corporations make less money when the economy goes into freefall."
Did you get that? Are we on the same page yet? Now let's put it all together: People pay less taxes when the economy crashes. The CBO report is based on current revenue. Revenue is declining.
You freaking moron.
If you want to be a fiscal conservative, FINE. But learn how the CBO report is calculated. And, for extra credit, maybe try to figure out what would have happened to our debt repayment terms if the fiscal stimulus hadn't been passed, and the system had been left to stabilize itself. Do you think our debt holders would have like that?
Libertarians are the stupidest. Sheesh. Learn to read. Every single government report, along withe the information you need to understand it, is online. There's no excuse for you insisting three times that revenue did not decline WHEN THE ECONOMY CRASHED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"As far as the other stuff, again, this may be difficult for you to comprehend as a liberal, but there's always the option of cutting spending...or even...oh I don't know...just not increasing it."
This is not an option that we can realistically pursue when supposed conservatives have embroiled us in two wars, requiring us to spend $636 billion on defense THIS YEAR ALONE. And when entitlement spending will rise with an aging population and INCREASING AMOUNTS OF FALLOUT FROM THE ECONOMIC NEAR-COLLAPSE.
But perhaps you think you'd like to cut all entitlement payments? Balance the budget by dumping the supposed "freeloaders?" Dude, Unless you're prepared to end Medicare, Medicaid, all federal aid to the unemployed, AND pretty much eliminate spending on prisons and anti-immigration programs, you're still screwed. You can cut the government to the bone, and you still can't get us in the black unless you can increase revenue, which, again, has DECLINED. (as a result of the BUSH economy, but what conservative is keeping track of that little detail?)
But let's say you get this done anyway. Do you think that millions of suffering, uninsured people without access to healthcare, might then strain state governments, just a bit? Do you think emptying the prisons might also strain the social system on which all those corporate profits depend? Do you think consumer demand may shrink, a little? Do you think that will then impact corporate profits? And do you think that will then, again, cause a DECLINE IN REVENUE? (Remember, revenue is taxes, sweetie pie, and collapsed corporations pay quite a bit less.)
That's what I meant when I said government was stuck with the bill. Either we pay up front to keep things from getting too bad. Or we pay after the fact by defaulting on debt and losing our ability to defend ourselves. It amazes me that conservatives can't seem to put this together. You're supposed to be the ones who want to lower the national debt and strengthen our national defense?