Drill down on that issue, and you'll see the real problem.

Non-corporate litigants are majority pro-se now. That's new. Most corporate-individual litigation takes placed in closed-door arbitration, where precedent cannot be established (e.g. to definitively decide that caste-based discrimination violates existing racial discrimination statutes).

"Indigent" criminal defendants do not receive anything resembling effective counsel.

The problem isn't "too many lawyers". The problem is "too many lawyers for oligarchs, and a population too poor to afford lawyers when harmed by oligarchs"

But it's still hard to find a lawyer that charges less than 250/hr.

My hypothesis is that law school is not preparing lawyers well enough to be useful right after school. So many can't find a job to get the experience to compete with senior attorneys who charge 250/hr.

Sometimes these artificial gates are good things. They can protect consumers from low-quality products whose quality is very hard to evaluate. The market you use to "buy" a lawyer is not efficient: lawyers are no commoditized and you don't buy them frequently enough to have a good skill at evaluating them. An artificial gate like a professional association can help ensure consumers get access to a quality product, and that shitty products are prevented from entering the market and driving down the reputation of all producers.

If you're competent you have offers left and right and can command a very good salary. If you're out of a diploma mill with just the curriculum under your belt you're basically useless.

And a law degree is probably more comparable to a masters in CS than a bootcamp like flatiron.

I feel like this is only true because there's such huge demand recently if you have a pulse and can code fizz buzz you can get hired - but I know 3 guys of the top of my head who went to school with me, finished 5 years (local uni, I dropped out but kept in touch) and then went in to IT or sales because they weren't good enough to get hired as devs - this was 10 years ago.

If someone used a law degree to sell law software, or malpractice insurance I would count that was well.

It's often stated - and worried about, but whenever a thread comes up about devs over 50, we mainly see counterexamples.

Law schools are making lots of lawyers, but the 'failed' ones just drop out. That is why there is no downward pressure on the fees from increased supply.

Lots of young lawyers have no interest in biglaw either, and only some of them are naive about their future prospects.

I've seen research that the average lawyer (which is definitely not NYC biglaw firm) successfully collects on about 1/8 of their nominally billable hours.

If that is true, and you also factor in that they are effectively running a small business with all that implies for non-billable work, your $250/hr lawyer working on their own is making about $50k/year. So even if we are off by nearly a factor of two, they are hardly raking it in.

By comparison if you are in larger firms, more of the hourly rate is captured but it is also paying for multiple people.

Don't get me wrong, there are lawyers out there making great money (e.g. partners in those same NYC biglaw firms). But thinking that is the experience of the average lawyers is a bit like looking at levels.fyi and deciding that all over the country most software engineers are making 250k+.

That's insane.

I think time estimation is pretty hard in a lot of legal work also, you may be prepped for 60 hours work over then next two weeks and then a client phone call derails it entirely. It's not always easy to replace that time.

Why is the US producing 25,000 more lawyers than it needs?

Why is this happening in a supposedly rational maximally efficient - or close offer - market economy?

The simple answer is because someone else profits hugely from the money they pay for training. Which in turn is a symptom of an extractive economy, not a productive economy.

A productive economy would do a much better job of allocating talent to social requirements. But an extractive economy is optimised for short-term gain of a small overclass - not the medium/long-term opportunity-growth of a strategically generative economy.

Through government financed student loans, we make money available for any sort of educational pursuit; and unlike a loan for, say, opening a new restaurant, no business plan or market research is needed to convince a banker that the venture is a sound one.

So, the reason this is happening in a "supposedly rational, maximally efficient — or close offer — market economy" is contained in the first word of the description: supposedly.

In truth, government loans distort and destroy a market economy. Cheap credit undermines rational planning.

And generally, the choice of education seems to lag behind what's actually in demand, even worldwide.

If there was no free money sloshing around, people would have to do a proper cash flow analysis and look at supply and demand before being able to invest their time in degrees that don’t have ROI.

Same thing happened with pharmacy school, and now there’s tons of pharmacists making very little money for exposing themselves to lots of liability in fast food working conditions.

So getting a degree is a gamble, because you either come out ahead or you get hobbled by it for the rest of your life. Whereas if you did indeed get free money to get a degree it would eliminate the hobble and produce a class of well-educated people who could afford to work for PD wages.

It's a gamble that the government offers to you even when it knows you can't meaningfully pay the loan back.

Isn't there any regulatory body which controls the number of law degrees awarded annually, like there is for doctors?

IN LAW {bar exams + prestigious law firms} ~ IN MEDICINE {board exams + specialty board residency placements}

It also differentiates the bar vs. board exams. You can't practice medicine without certification, but there are plenty of lawyers doing law without a bar association, it only constrains you from doing certain types of work.

It’s as Churchill said of Democracy, it’s the worst form of government we’ve come up with, except for all the others. Fortunately in a Democracy we have the freedoms to discuss, identify and agree solutions to these problems. These solutions will probably lead to more problems. Rinse and repeat.

I know, I know, get off my lawn.

You are comparing college students from the 1980s to those from 20xx. I'll tell you what is on the mind of the new students: how the heck do I pay my student loans and save up for a $2M starter home

It is easy to have passion when you barely have student loans and can buy a home with a year or two of earnings.

In case you point out that salaries were also lower back then, i'll give you that, but the ratio of salary/debt and salary/homeprice was far more reasonable back then than now.

EDIT: This is a US-centric view, not necessarily a global view. Further, it is a SF/SV/NYC centric view since that is where a majority of tech+banking jobs are.

Where I live in, in Charlotte, NC a $1-2 million home budget would buy you a literal castle. Here is one on zillow not far from me for $1.2M it's a 6 bed, 7 bath, 7500+ Sq ft castle on an acre and surrounded by forest while still being only a 20 minute drive to the heart of the city.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/14001-Grand-Palisades-Pkw...

For a much more reasonable $250K you can easily get a nice 2-3K sq ft 3-4 bedroom home with a quarter acre lot, nice fixtures and a 2 bay garage. This is in the 15th largest city in the US mind you. Better deals can be had elsewhere.

He also talked about how he was able to buy into amazon stocks when it was $60. If you are just starting your career you're jumping into a world where everything is at an all time high, that includes housing as well, every decent asset is currently at an all time high and we know that there's no room for us.

So we're left out of the big party, and we're scrunching to try to survive as we cope with our depression and anxiety about what an insecure future we have with climate change looming in the distance. Yes, take a job for the money. It's the only chance you have.

Lol, there are a lot of stocks now at 60 you could buy that may turn out to be big winners. What kind of argument is that?

My argument was that of course students are not passionate, they are worried about student loans, homes, rents. (Fun exercise go to the same Zillow link and try to find homes in NYC max $250k. Then, on what you find, look at the transportation options are into NYC.)

I'm glad you brought up NC because it has a decent sized banking sector but also offers great QoL. I actually left NYC and took a super-interesting job a bit north of you in Virginia. Homes are affordable, QoL is great.

There is a catch though: there arent all that many other interesting jobs in tech (as there were in NY/SF). The startup scene is tiny. There are few FAANG jobs here though Amazon is supposed to come soon. There are some awesome CS research-type jobs, in govnt labs.

There are lots of interesting consulting jobs to be fair, as well as FAANG SE jobs. There are lots of interesting data-type jobs in Intelligence. There are also tens of thousands of totally dead-end tech jobs where you do nothing all day at government offices. A friend told me he's been waiting two months to get approval to install a pip library on a government machine. Another friend works on ancient systems.

Good QoL - absolutely.

Good home prices - absolutely.

Jobs i'd be passionate about - some, hopefully more coming with remote.

Am I obsessively passionate about the work here? No, i'm mostly enjoying the outdoors.

Not valid for Scandinavia. In Denmark we get paid approx $1000 per month (like a wage) for studying and we pay $0 for attending university. You only have to pay for your own computer.

Some students have a part time job, some get extra money from parents.

So many students get by with zero loans.

Then university has nothing of the general courses and only specialized following your program.

You have some statistics in page 7 here, for Sweden though. It is influenced by people taking single courses and masters programs instead of the first enrollment so keep that in mind.

https://www.uhr.se/globalassets/_uhr.se/publikationer/2020/s...

I've met people with grad degrees in less remunerative fields who absolutely have exactly the worries you imagine. But a fresh grad with a CS degree and a promising career? A 250k salary isn't even a stretch for them to imagine. Add a partner with a similar income and both the student loans and that $2M starter home seem plenty achievable.

Especially if they look at home prices in Oakland or Hayward where home prices are still under $1M, rather than the more exclusive parts of San Francisco (read: all of it).

A large number of $250k+ salaries, on Wall St, for example permanently disappeared with the move to open source, shared servicing, etc. Former bosses are "retired" or "consultants" or insurance brokers.

Finally, sure, having a spouse who also earns $250k is great, but does everyone have that? Should CS grads only marry other CS grads? What if you wall in love with someone who does HR (which is my case)?

Also note, that stretching for a $2M home with two $250k tech salaries is pretty risky

0. What happens when you turn 35 or 40 and now face age discrimination?

1. Both your salaries are highly industry correlated

2. Both your salaries are regionally correlated

3. If either of you lose a job, you're screwed with a mega-loan.

4. What happens when kids come and you cant work (as easily, or at all?)

Let's ground this in more realistic numbers: you can reasonably buy a $500k residential property in the SF Bay on a single $140k salary. That's a salary that's very achievable for a senior engineer - which is to say five years of experience, which many will hit by 30. It's one that you can keep getting when you hit 35 or 40 if you don't move into management or technical leadership so long as you don't insist on working solely for startups founded recently by 20-somethings. It's a pay packet that will enable you to rid yourself of student loans in relatively short order, should you choose to do so.

The nice thing about the "the tech industry" is that one name covers a shockingly diverse swath. I've seen personal finance, business finance, high finance, business services, medicine, consumer electronics, and more all under the name of "tech". They are not nearly are industry-correlated as calling it all "tech industry" might lead someone to think. Often they have little in common with one another except using a bit of Python or Ruby.

With that in mind, and that any property appreciates in value over enough time (or at least is exceptionally unlikely to lose significant value in the SF Bay), we've got a scenario where of 0-4 concerns, only #2 is really a big one in this new world of remote work. 0 and 1 aren't big issues, as mentioned previously. 3 isn't a huge deal - you're sitting on an asset in which you have a non-trivial chunk of ownership that you can use. 4 is a universal issue that will arise in literally any scenario where you don't have 1%-grade resources, and no change of location (or income) will fix that.

Your concerns are wise, and clear-headed. I applaud your foresight and caution! I think it just might be possible that grounding numbers in reality might change the calculations slightly.

What you say is highly logical and models well with the current state of the world. However, it doesnt model unknown unknowns. The problem with modeling unknown unknowns is that you remain in a constant state of fear of what might happen, even though in the base case you would be OK -- so again your viewpoint makes sense.

However, I myself, cant stop thinking of unknown unknowns. Two that worry me (not worry me crazy, just worry me enough not to buy an expensive home in SF) are:

- What if tech jobs go remote and SF property prices stay constant? Now you dont get the appreciation you are expecting. Also, now, wages are stagnant or reduced with the large pool of workers across the US willing to work for less.

- What if the "burn down tech industry" segment of politicians win power (or cabinet influence) and create all sorts of punitive laws?

- What if we allow a lot more highly-skilled immigrants into the country (generally, i'm in favor of this coming from an immigrant family, but it cannot be denied that there would be a 3-5yr blip downwards in wages as the industry re-calibrates to more efficiently use all resources, including eventually creating net new jobs)

I'll give you three examples of unknown unknowns:

1. A friend in NYC purchased a simple 2family home and rents out the below unit to help pay the mega-mortgage. This year, there was a law that in many cases renters can defer rent (unlikely to pay it later, since it will obviously be a huge number.) Also, there is a moratorium on evictions. Also, the homeowner has to continue paying property taxes, utilities, heating, gas, etc. The model just went out the window.

2. A friend in 2009 -- outstanding performer -- was fighting to keep his job (along with a dozen other folks.) Suddenly there was a sexual harrassment claim (no witnesses, he said vs she said.) One person desperately trying to keep their job was the accuser, one was the accused. The accused lost his job. Took him 9 months to find a new job. Burnt thru his 6mo savings buffer. Increasingly desperate for a job, lowered his salary expectations and no longer earning $250k

3. Company is doing well. You are doing awesome. Making great buck. Suddenly, a corporate acquisition. New overloads bringing in loyalists. Bonuses cut for a year or so. Market is bad, stock grants are below what you got (Happens all the time). Dont want to switch jobs and be LIFO. You just went from $250 TC to $170TC.

My point is not that people cannot make ends meet. They can. Also, we in tech have it pretty good. BUT I would agrue that there are too many unknowns and stresses to "just pursue your passion" as the GP post was saying. I mean, sure, if everything was covered i'd love to pursue my passion. But it isnt.

Finally, you cant easily sell a home.

1. 6% real estate commission (if you put 20% down, you just lost 30% of your equity)

2. Title Insurance (1.5% depending on state)

3. Lawyers, fees, transfer taxes.

4. Bid-Ask spread.

All in, selling a home, especially under duress, exacts ~7-10% cost depending on your tax jurisdiction. If you put 20% down, you just lost 33 to 50% of your equity.

You can choose to minimize your risks to maximize your resources for dealing with unexpected events. This is absolutely, completely, and in every possible way a valid life choice! Validity does not mean free of consequences, though.

I have several friends who live this way. They do their best to minimize every risk in their lives and maximize their spare resources. One thing they all have in common is that they never have enough saved to feel secure - there's always a bigger and scarier scenario that they aren't prepared for. Some of them even struggle to tap their "unknown unknown" funds in the event of genuine emergencies, because there's more that could go wrong and they need to be prepared.

Choosing to be maximally conservative is a perfectly reasonable and completely valid life choice. The catch, perhaps, is contextualizing it and accepting that you will pay a price for minimizing risk. Otherwise there's the real risk that a person winds up forever paralyzed by anxiety, sitting like the world's smallest dragon atop a horde of pennies in case you might need them.

And I think it's fair to say that that's not a portrait of your average college student or the future they envision.

I did not find the boom period as bad as I expected. Many of the students in it for the money were still very smart and motivated and interesting to talk to. But I preferred the non-boom periods nonetheless :)

It is because people are not one dimensional. Most people have talent for range of professions, they are not predisposed to like exactly one of them. Also, most good students will end up liking whatever they picked provided it is within range of things they are not completely failing at.

Learning something often makes one like it more, even if one was initially ambivalent. Plus, once you know a bit more about field, you can find sub-field you are actually good at and find fun. As in, various tech jobs require slightly different aptitudes - some require more patience, some more abstract thinking, others memory. But, you dont know until you try.

You're only going to get a good TA when that professor is teaching a class that's their focus and has a grad student that has that fucus AND that student isn't on other research funding. The system is far from optional for either undergrads or grads. Believe me, I'm not happy either

Each class would 1-2 people in it that were genuinely interested in computers.

Early web startup cultures were heavy on college drop outs who had passed the professors in “useful” skills.

Sounds like folks who love the field but hate the job, should teach!

The trouble is that the students will see the instructor as the barrier between them abd a paying career.

I loved solving problems with computers in high school. Didn’t give a crap about theory unless it helped me solve harder problems.

So more engineer then scientist.

Choice for college path. Computer Management or Computer Science.

Once of those was about buying software and managing people.

Other was learning fundamentals so I could build cool stuff.

That's correct, but is not what is implied by "The source of unrest is resentment among people that don't think they're getting their fair share". Those investors are analogous to the knights & nobles of the 1200s, who most likely will gladly support the existing system because they benefit greatly from it.

What is implied is that people _who train to be investors but cannot find work investing_ will be more likely to develop growing levels of resentment. They are in the same boat as the extra 25000 lawyers per year.

  >  the inability of society to support an excess of people who expect to be in the elite.

Perhaps this is somewhat an issue of self identification though.