"subsidizing" (0.00 / 0)

The interesting thing to me is that when it is called subsidizing they are explicitly disassociating the work from the rewards.

My guess is that that it is a pre 1980s mindset.  The mindset is a more traditionalist paternal father figure bestowing what rewards he may on whoever he thinks is deserving rather than an incentive to keep them in the office working hard.

---

by: Astera @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 08:44:51 AM CST

Also another article to back up my point (0.00 / 0)

There was another article in the NYT about how the new young superich "who are getting rich too early" are disatisfied and still trying to compete. 

So I don't think it is a money thing.  It has more to do with age.

---

by: Astera @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 08:47:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

lifestyle (0.00 / 0)

Somehow it seems interesting that the lifestyle subsidies include a hybrid car. 


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 09:42:43 AM CST

You hit the nail on the head here (4.00 / 2)

It's all about resenting the right people, who are never those at the top.  Resent and target the illegal immigrants, not the corporation hiring them.  Resent and target the young legal talent, not the plutocracy paying them these bribes.

This is as old as the hills.  You overwork a few young people and in the middle of the death march, whoppee, you throw a pizza party - at the boss's expense.  Big frickin deal.  Same thing in the IT industry except the salaries are a little lower, and the benefits not so plush.  It's called a "death march" there.

Instead, they could hire more people, manage better, and make it so that 80-hour weeks don't need to be worked.  But that would decrease the payout to the top of the  pyramid, and that cannot be questioned -- a bad career move to so much as mention that, so you're supposed to direct your resentments at the "rich young lawyers" instead of noticing that whole damned system is out of whack.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 11:46:41 AM CST

You get the superficial purpose, but miss the deeper... (0.00 / 0)

"This isn't an example of the New York Times beating up on autoworkers, or janitors, or old people for taking too many Social Security benefits, but young upscale lawyers making good money.  The pattern of beating up on the non-superrich, though is the same, and it's designed to make you shake your head and say 'man, those young'uns are getting spoiled out of their mind' instead of recognizing that services like child care, high wages, and decency towards employees are good things. "

It's an issue of bamboozling the public into going along with corporate/medical liability caps-cum-get-out-of-responsibility-free-cards. The only success they have with limiting the plaintiff's ability to sue, or collect damages, is via convincing the public that the lawyers are the problem, rather than, you know, the ones who harm the public. This sort of article is aimed at that.

---

by: sherifffruitfly @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 12:21:59 PM CST

The stupidest sheep in the world are young firm lawyers. (0.00 / 0)

I made a decision in my 1L year:  I would never ever work at a big firm and be a slave making the old white male at the top of the pyramid scheme even richer just so i could work 80 hours a week, only being able to drive the BMW to and from work because there was no time to enjoy it.

Young lawyers, being full of ego and and hungry for status are too blind to see that big firms are nothing more than a high-end version of Amway and its pyramid scheme.  They sell legal services to a wide swath of people and a few rich old white men make money on every sale (billed hour).

Oh, but that is the dirty little secret the old boys don't want anyone to hear, lest they wake up and the gravy train stops.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

---

by: avenged savant @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 16:33:37 PM CST

That's Nothing! (0.00 / 0)

I hear that some screenwriters actually drive cars!

(Aren't they just supposed to sit in front of their screens all day, and like, you know, write on them? What do they need cars for?)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 17:16:31 PM CST

But they don't... (0.00 / 0)

....actually own them.

The bank does that.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 17:29:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Those Over-Indulgent Bankers! (0.00 / 0)

Letting those writers drive their cars!  Now, if they were going to let the writers wash them in their driveways, that would be different.

And here I thought those bankers were supposed to be Republicans!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 21:09:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't Let Them Divide Us (0.00 / 0)

While I certainly agree with the following points:

"The article never bothers to note that law firm partners make an exceptional amount of money, or that most young law firm associates spend 80 hours a week on incredibly boring repetitive corporate work and have large student loans to pay back."

and acknowledge that this article was a gratuitous and somewhat unfair shot at first-year associates, as a first-year associate myself, I would say that most of us are doing just great compared to the average American and that the NY Times should be focused on the countless wage earners in other fields who are being screwed, not on a few in one field who are slightly spoiled.

I think you are right that it is a subtle attempt to play blue-collar and middle income professionals off of each other while the CEO's and senior management slip out the back door with the bulk of the loot. I'm remembering the end of Zinn's "A People's History" and his basic conclusion that the greatest hope for a more humane and just nation is a coalition between the "gatekeepers" (or professional classes) and blue-collar workers.

---

by: the new @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 17:57:36 PM CST

We had a similar discussion on Thanksgiving (4.00 / 1)

  My wingnut parents were talking about a recent 60 Minutes report on "pampered and spolied" millennium-generation workers, who would quit their jobs at the slightest pretext, making it oh-so-inconvenient for their employers. The usual kids-these-days blather.

  I retorted, "Loyalty is a two-way street. If your employer is willing to outsource your job at the drop of a hat, he has no right to complain if YOU exercise YOUR options just as capriciously."

  The conversation immediately turned to the turkey.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 19:10:14 PM CST

Two things. (0.00 / 0)

One] It is interesting how child care, the thing that I'm sure we all agree is an important perk that should be part of everyone's compensation, is mentioned at the end of the article in dismissive fashion. I'll go out on a limb and guess the young lawyers care a bit more about childcare options than wine parties with their coworkers.

Two] The second thing is how Silicon Valley it all sounds. You expect the nerf guns and foosball tables to emerge from the wings at any second. Does this anticipate a coming consolidation of the old professional classes into the "creative" classes that you guys always like to trumpet? Are lawyers just doing graphic design?

---

by: nvalvo @ Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 15:22:16 PM CST