Jump to content

Diplock

Members
  • Content Count

    6521
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    311

Everything posted by Diplock

  1. This is right. If your grades are great already, and you're set for the LSAT, feel free to continue musing about whether you want a career in personal injury or some other kind of law. If you don't have the grades and LSAT, no volunteer gig is going to make the difference, and you'll end up having no kind of career in law at all.
  2. Yes, people have gone to Bond. Start by searching for the topic on this site, read a selection of the many threads you'll find, and go from there.
  3. Could you two arrange a swap somehow, officially or even unofficially? Any chance you too look alike - could possibly even have a twin separated at birth? We could really have a plotline here.
  4. Life is uncertain. Trying to weigh ever possible variable becomes impossible, at some point. If it's your dream to live and work in the U.S. then pursue that dream. I understand that dream about as much as I would if you were desperate to get laid by Danny DeVito before he dies and it's too late. But hey - follow your dreams, wherever they may lead.
  5. I'm not sure what law school you are referring to, or which examples you are citing, but I'm reasonably sure even gold medalists do not routinely get A+s across the board. Is there some reason you believe this is the case?
  6. Statements about the real quality of foreign legal education may come down to opinion. I mean, there's probably an objective truth to that somewhere, but we'd need to consult education experts and academics to get at that. Statements about the results of foreign legal education in the Canadian job market are not matters of opinion. This is a question of observable reality. And that's what almost everyone cares about and ends up asking. "If I go to this school, and come back to Canada, will I be able to find a job?" On that basis, it's a bad idea - or at very least, it's a plan of last resort. To put it another way, it may come down to opinion, but isn't that what the employment marketplace is? When you're trying to get someone to hire you, their opinion about whether you're the best candidate for the job is all that matters. The sum of all opinions of all employers is what determines the outcome. There's no question that individual situations will vary. There's no doubt at all in my mind that in specific examples, there must be employers on the market who would take a foreign grad over a domestic grad - perhaps alumni from the same schools, or someone who for whatever reason is inexplicably more impressed by Leicester than by U of T. But overall the trends are very clear, and are observable by all lawyers working in the field. And that's exactly why a consensus has emerged here. Take all of that for what you will. No one is saying you have to like it, or even agree. But it's true information from lawyers who are paying attention.
  7. Depends. Which language do you speak?
  8. I'm so torn on this. On the one hand, I do appreciate that interviews are stressful, that some students struggle with the process and the some (not always the same ones) struggle with the results. I believe in supporting people who need support, and trying not to judge "good" and "bad" reasons for needing support when it's required. But at the same time, we're talking about candidates who (a) have already succeeded at virtually everything in their lives and have immense amounts of both earned and unearned privilege, and (b) are applying for jobs which would entail dealing with stressful and complex problems on behalf of clients who are paying a lot of money for the service. So I'm left wondering. Am I a dick for just really not caring if immensely privileged people have trouble dealing with the first real failure they've ever experienced? Is it unreasonable of me to imagine that if you're applying for stressful, difficult, competitive jobs where clients are expecting you to solve their problems, that you yourself should be able to cope with stress, difficulty, competition, and even failure without falling the fuck apart? Is it unfair to suggest that if someone can't deal with just the interviews, or with managing temporary professional setbacks, then they really should be rejected, because they are just lacking in some essential skillsets that lawyers need? I don't know. I feel like maybe support and validation can't be the same thing in some of these cases. As in, anyone who is hurting deserves some sympathy. But this crap about how everyone is awesome gets thick sometimes. Everyone isn't awesome. Every year, there is a real slice of candidates who are applying for these jobs even though they very obviously do not belong in these jobs. Some will do well in other legal positions elsewhere. Some shouldn't practice law at all. Not everyone who has the skills to succeed in law school has the skills to succeed in legal practice. Even some of the professors teaching in law schools don't have those skills. Pretending that every student who applied can or should find one of these jobs is just wrong, and untrue.
  9. Can't be bothered looking it up for you, but here's the tariff manual. It'll be in here somewhere: https://www.legalaid.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/Tariff_Manual.pdf
  10. I don't know what gave anyone the idea that entrepreneurship and social enterprise are somehow the same thing. A very small subset of smaller and start-up businesses can reasonably be described as anything like social entreprise. You can potentially get rich starting the next uber eats. Not denying that can theoretically happen. But to describe starting the next uber eats as somehow contributing to the improvement of society, over and beyond simply lining your own pockets, is a stretch. I don't know what sort of metric I'd apply to measure what percentage of any particular profession is engaged in socially progressive work. But I'm happy to assert that there is a very sizable percentage of the legal profession that's doing so. Look, here's one very specific example from my own experience. I do criminal defence. The Criminal Lawyers' Association is having a fall conference in just a week. There are 700 spots and the thing is almost sold out. It will be full - always is. Here's a link to the agenda: https://criminallawyers.ca/events/47th-annual-cla-fall-conference/ So, what's here? On a quick scan, panel on impaired (not too progressive), sexual assault (hot button topic, if nothing else), prison conditions (pretty progressive), cultural reports for black clients (check!), representing Aboriginal clients (check!), some other technical stuff, etc. And that's day one. This will be a room full of 700 lawyers learning this stuff. You can't tell me this is somehow a small fraction of the profession. And this is only criminal defence, and only one conference. You think family lawyers, immigration lawyers, etc. don't also do progressive work much of the time? Here's my take. Absolutely I've seen a lot of people head into law school making grandiose claims about saving the world and then ending up where they do jack shit all about it. And some of them bitch and moan about how they were never given the choice and had to settle for making good money helping corporations make tons more money than that. And that's bullshit. Of all the people in any profession who talk a good game at the start, how many do you think stay committed to saving the world, or even doing hard, socially progressive work when they could be making easier money doing something else? Not a lot, I'd wager, in any field. Really, this gets to the heart of my concern about Mazzy as the OP, and a concern I'd have for anyone coming here with similar complaints. Maybe she doesn't belong in law. Maybe she'd do better with a MBA - I'm in no position to know. But when someone says "I want to be creative, do interesting work, do progressive work, contributing to bettering society, and on top of that make at least decent money doing it" I think "okay, that's possible, and I feel I know many people who are doing that." When they add the criticism about how they feel the path isn't easy or well laid out for them in law and so they are going elsewhere I think "fuck, you're screwed." Because it isn't well laid out anywhere. The easy paths, the easy jobs, the easiest money all lead to the same mainstream shit. I mean honestly, is that so hard to predict? You want to do things differently but you're shocked that the shortest, straightest, easiest paths lead to things that aren't different? That's my take. It isn't only law. If you hold on to your dreams, and make the necessary sacrifices along the way, you can do a hell of a lot of good with a law degree. I'm sure you can also do a hell of a lot of good outside of law also. But in neither case are you going to find it easy. And people who give up because it isn't easy, and then claim they were somehow prevented from doing the good work they pretend they were committed to before they were somehow forced to work for "the man" instead - yeah. I understand the world comes with choices. But quite honestly, the people I knew when I was younger who really had their shit together are still doing it. The people who thought that being progressive was easy, and someone would throw them a parade just for showing up...they're all doing other things now. And it's not hard to see why.
  11. Our Law Society is run by people who only thought as far as wanting to eliminate a statement of principle that was bothering them. I have faith you'll get there - far more than I have in them.
  12. Okay. I'm sold. I don't agree with every one of Uriel's suggestions, but then he knows a lot more than I do about all of this. I agree with his values and the bases of his approach enough to simply trust his developed opinions are better than my own. I move he be put in charge of all of this, and tasked with complete authority to fix everything.
  13. Probably true. But since a summer student at a law firm has no special standing at all anyway (seriously, no ability to do anything a high school drop out can't legally do) then isn't what firms are paying really just a premium to lock up their perceived top candidates? This goes exactly to Uriel's point. Students aren't being paid based on real worth anyway. They are being paid so the employers most interested in their top picks can scoop them up early. And despite putting money in student's pockets, that's part of the problem.
  14. I tried writing something clever about how I'd change OCIs by requiring students to take some kind of mandatory counseling or orientation course before they were allowed to participate. I couldn't make it sound funny because it's a ridiculous suggestion, but I'm not actually kidding. OCIs are hell because students turn them into that - for themselves, for each other, and I'm sure to some degree for the poor interviewers on the other side of the table. You can't "solve" what's wrong with OCIs without addressing what's wrong with the participants in OCIs. And I know that isn't a fun answer, but it's a genuinely held belief. The thing to remember about OCIs is this. The process may not be perfect, and there may be tweaks available that could make them better, but the central intention of the process is already what you want it to be. It's a process (believe it or not!) designed to protect students from employers. Apparently back in the "good old days" (well before my time - I've only heard stories) the market for top students was so voracious they were being recruited before they even started 1L. It was a free-for-all, with negative consequences. So employers got together and with the involvement of law schools and the Law Society they put together this process meant to impose some rules and limitations and timelines - again, primarily to protect students. Because there's absolutely nothing that says there needs to be rules at all. Anyway, I'm not saying this to deny there are real concerns and things that students are rightly worried about. For example, as compared to the "good old days" just noted, there's legitimate reason to fear that a reasonable candidate might have trouble securing entry into the profession at all. Now that gets into other things, but my point is, yes, that fear builds into the OCI process. But it isn't caused by the rules governing OCIs. Even when I've got a total handle on my tendency to be snide about this, there are certain things about a competitive employment market that are going to suck no matter how you structure the way in which students are trying to enter that market. I do believe it could be tweaked. I don't believe any system is perfect, so there's probably room for legitimate ideas for improvement. But in terms of where there is the most potential for improvement, I genuinely believe it's with the students themselves. Every damn year there's a new crop of students who run at this process like their very lives depend on it. And every year the same team on this site responds to the ensuing crisis, talking about other jobs to come, practice options outside of big law, how to search for positions post-OCI recruiting, etc. And it really makes me wonder - why does it take the idiots hanging around on this site to get this information into the heads of students? Is there really no other organized effort out there to make this information available? Anyway, sorry for the serious post. But I really think the best possible innovation would be to force OCI participants to listen to some of the same stuff that people like Uriel post on this site every damn year. It won't solve every problem, but at least it might calm people down a bit.
  15. This discussion got unnecessarily negative quickly. Probably a result of "wrong message at the wrong time." But the basic original point is important, and at some future time will be useful to students. The OCI process IS a highly mediated, greatly simplified way of applying for work. Absolutely it's competitive. No one is pretending at all that logistical support eases the competitive aspect of these applications. But surely no one imagined that extremely well-paid legal jobs at top employers are anything other than competitive? It's a fair warning. From this point forward, you're on your own. And if you find THIS difficult to handle, it doesn't get easier. Not saying it's a nice thing to hear (or good timing for that message) just that it's true. If it softens the blow a bit, that's not because the world hates law graduates. Almost no other profession has this kind of mediated interview process at all. Everyone else starts right away where we eventually end up also - just finding and applying for whatever jobs happen to be available, when they come available, and hoping for the best. Anyway, sorry to anyone who didn't get what they were looking for, and good luck in the future. Now that the annual cycle of OCI questions are done, the annual cycle of what-comes-after-OCIs questions can start.
  16. Fully agree. I've given this answer at greater length elsewhere, and a number of times, but it comes down to this. Whatever your background may be (courses, other activities, demonstrated ares of interest) I'm just about certain you present as a good fit for some jobs, while at others you present as a candidate who just desperately wants some kind of job at all. For jobs where you are a good fit, you stand a real chance and eventually, all else being equal, I'd anticipate that you'll catch on somewhere. For those other jobs, your application is probably going straight into the garbage, and if you somehow get to an interview or something it's likely a waste of everyone's time. So the upshot is, despite your fear of lettering any opportunity slip past right now, you should be concentrating your time and energy on the jobs where you stand a real chance (which are the jobs you actually want anyway!) and stop wasting your energy looking for and applying to absolutely anything.
  17. Anyone who asks as many questions as you do, all of which come down to "is it normal to feel this way?" is in need of professional evaluation. I'm saying it again - probably not for the last time - in the hope you'll one day pay attention and listen to this advice. The issues you are experiencing are all, to one degree or another, real concerns. You reaction to these issues is not normal, is not healthy, and needs professional attention. Please seriously consider getting help.
  18. Last reply. I think you're flailing around here with a variety of frustrations and concerns about the legal profession. And I think you're going to need to refine what you're talking about a lot before you'll be able to do anything with it. But for whatever it's worth, you're at least participating maturely in a conversation about it. I came at you pretty hard, as have others, and you've responded well. That says a lot. Try not to make any permanent decisions until you spend time thinking carefully about this stuff. But as you have new ideas, feel free to bounce them off people here. Folks will give you almost endless time on this site as long as you aren't being ridiculous, and you're not being ridiculous. Confused maybe, but that's not the same thing. Yeah and that gig-economy-machine-learning-driven-blockchain-empowered-megalaw-application thing was meant to be a joke. There's always a hook for why the old stuff doesn't work anymore and why everything is going to change. This is just me making fun of that.
  19. @mazzy - Okay, at this point I'll wish you good luck. But you know, you really need to find a way of describing what you want, and what are trying to avoid, in terms that do not suggest you think the legal profession is too small-minded to accommodate your genius and the vast impact you plan on having in the world. The terms in which you are engaging here are unavoidably insulting to just about everyone practicing law, and self-aggrandizing in terms of your ambitions to an almost comical degree. The last advice I would give you is this. I truly and genuinely think you are looking for everything at once (which is dangerous, see above) but if I had to pull out one general theme it would be that you want power. You want to make an impact. And you don't want to wait to develop knowledge and seniority in your field, necessarily. You want people to listen to you now. I'd encourage you to consider whether that's realistic in any field. Leaving aside tech entrepreneurs and people who manage to be in charge at a young age mainly because they own whatever they are in charge of, no one is welcoming 20-somethings into any profession and saying "please tell us what you think we should be doing here, because we don't have a clue!" And again, maybe I'm starting to sound like an old man here, but there's a difference between seeking a profession where you feel there's room to learn and grow into a leader (which is rational) and seeking a profession where you get to start calling the shots before you learn where the bathrooms are located (which is obviously not rational). I've been practicing law long enough that I have literally seen several distinct waves of graduates, each of them swearing up and down that theirs would be the generation that breaks everything, reforms everything, and that dinosaurs like me would be begging to work for them in whatever kind of gig-economy-machine-learning-driven-blockchain-empowered-megalaw-application they end up conquering the world with. Now to give you some credit, you are at least sort of giving up on law entirely. You don't think you're going to conquer it. You just think ... I don't know, that it's too broken a vehicle to do anything with at all. And maybe that's true if you want to reform the world. But I'm not aware the kind of transformation you're talking about has an identifiable profession. There are people who are doing it, no question. But there isn't a specific credential that gets you there. And quite a fair percentage of the people leading change at that level are lawyers too. Generally not fresh out of law school. Anyway, good luck.
  20. People are going to say things to you sometimes that aren't entirely true and/or aren't very nice. When that happens, hopefully someone is there to defend you or correct misinformation. But truthfully, the way you are pursuing this topic, you are far beyond the point where anyone else can be blamed for your insanity. You listen to everything and everyone, and obsess over anything someone has said - no matter the source - if it confirms any pre-existing anxieties you already had. You're at the point where it wouldn't surprise me if you quoted the security guard at the convention centre where OCIs are being held. "Hey, that guy over there told me that only suckers wear blue ties to interviews! OMG! I need a new tie now!!!" People are going to say shit to you. That's part of life. Although I don't want to become one of them, I honestly do wonder how you expect to function in an adversarial legal environment of any sort with this attitude. As soon as opposing counsel tells you that your case is shit, and your client is going to lose and end up paying their costs, are you going to tell your client they need to drop the case immediately? Anyway, please dude ... just, please. Watching you on this forum is like watching the guy who can't stop gambling his money away, even though he's run out of money for food and he's starting to hawk his clothes. Saying the same thing over and over to that guy is a total waste of time, but it's like I just can't look away and stop trying. You are completely out of control man. Your issues here go so much deeper than OCIs. And I desperately wish, since you seem to listen to everything else anyone says, that you'd listen to me or some of the many other people who have been trying to tell you that.
  21. @Mazzy - You're not being annoying about this, so I'm going to give you the best advice I know how to give. And seriously, this is damn important advice. Please heed carefully. The more you discuss this topic, the more different things you raise that seem to be priorities for you. By discussing what it would take to become an equity partner you are implicitly bringing up opportunities for progression and authority as well as money. I don't know quite where that fits with non-hierarchical values (I want to work somewhere without hierarchy now, but WITH hierarchy when I get to be on top of it?) but whatever. My point isn't to take issue with your priorities and values but rather to point out that you've raised a LOT of different things that you want and which are apparently important to you. Whether you pursue these things in law or outside of legal practice, the odds that you are going to find a position without difficult working hours, where your non-hierarchical contributions are fully appreciated, where you have the opportunity to effect social change, work unambiguously on the "good" side most of the time, have significant upwards potential, make a lot of money, etc. etc. etc. The notion that you'll find all of those things at once is pretty unreasonable. Here's my point. I'm not trying to piss on your dreams, I'm just saying that compromises happen and are in most cases inevitable. No one gets everything. But I've noticed there are really two kinds of people out there, in terms of how folks pursue their careers. The first group thinks carefully about what they are and are not willing to compromise on. The second group does not, and tries to pursue everything at once. BOTH groups end up compromising in the end, but the difference is that when you think carefully about your priorities you can compromise strategically - the odds are good you'll at least compromise on things you can live without and end up with the things that are really important to you. When you don't do that, you still compromise, but in ways that are forced on you by circumstances. And the odds that you'll end up compromising in ways you can live with, and still get the things most important to you, are much lower. I'm not saying give up on everything entirely. For example, money for me was not a priority - not past a reasonable middle-class income. Somehow, through hard work and being good at what I do, the money eventually came anyway. Maybe that'll work for you too. But start on a foundation of your most important values and build out from there. Do NOT chase everything at once. Hope that helps.
  22. Quite frankly, it sounds to me like you have a very superficial and immature view of what lawyers do in a variety of fields. Bear in mind as I say this - I'm a defence lawyer. I butt heads with the Crown on any number of issues. But the one thing I would not say about them is that they should be disparaged because they lock up minorities for non-violent offences. So you ... what? Heard a couple of people say something and decided it isn't for you? Asking questions is fine, but I'd strongly encourage you to do two VERY important things before making sudden career moves. First, figure out what you ACTUALLY WANT out of your career. Because right now it sounds like you want everything. You want an intellectually fascinating practice. You want a comfortable and relaxed work environment. You want a job where you get to unambiguously be a hero, so that you can tell anyone what you do and they all think it's neat. And you apparently want more besides. How you imagine you're going to get that with an MBA is beyond me. But whatever. My basic point is, no one gets everything. So pursuing everything at the same time is a waste of time and energy. You need to figure out what you MOST care about in your job, and focus your ambitions on getting that. Second, you need to learn a lot more about what jobs in law (and perhaps outside of law) actually entail, so you can compare (a) to (b). Honestly, there could be a lot of different things going on with you right now, but when generally smart people start complaining about the law being too inflexible and prescriptive, it usually means that someone told you in class your creativity isn't welcome and no one cares how you think the law should work. That's flatly true. You work with the law we have, not with the law you think we should have. I suppose if you want to be an artist you can paint or compose whatever you want (though even there you should built a knowledgeable foundation first) but in all fields, you're going to be told to shut up and learn before you start telling everyone what you think. I hate to have a "kids today" moment, but here it is. Kids today seem to think that their work environment should prize what they themselves thought up over breakfast rather than what authorities in the field learned and developed over long periods of time. And that's just crap. In any field, you can eventually contribute to change. In law also. But first you need to learn the existing law down cold. And expecting otherwise - expecting professionals twice your age to welcome you to the job environment and say something like "thank God you're here - we don't know how to do this and we're hoping you can teach us!" is probably unrealistic. Note - I REALLY ran with a few vague statements you made and just drew sweeping conclusions. If they are unwarranted, I apologize. But I'm leaving them in just in case they are useful. I was prone to the same thing when I was younger. Still am, somewhat. But I know it's a dangerous instinct. The law is built on a very solid foundation. Desperately smart and committed people have put entire lifetimes into figuring this stuff out in the past. Learn it well, because that's what gives you the knowledge base to tinker with it when you're ready. It isn't a waste of your time to learn how and why it works the way it does right now, or even how and why it worked differently in the past. A lot of smart people did a lot of smart things before millennials and their non-hierarchical thinking came along. Don't be too quick to dismiss it.
  23. @hoju - I'm sorry. I scrolled back and it was KingLouis who referenced the labour movement more generally. I'm losing track of who I'm in dialogue with. Maybe you individually really have kept this ONLY about real estate without drawing excessively wider trends. It's hard to keep track in such a scattered conversation. Since you're being rational, I'll add one thought. And it won't make anyone feel better, but I do believe this is true. The real estate market has inadvertently forced relatively middle-class people, in the last couple of decades, to do something no one would ever normally do - concentrate their available wealth and equity massively in a single investment. Over the last couple of decades that investment has paid off very, very well, and as a result this group of inadvertent gamblers (and it is a gamble) have won large. I would never deny that. But even still, I know people who bought at the wrong time and/or sold at the wrong time and lost big money doing it. Real estate isn't the sure route to wealth that it seems to be recently. Even a few decades ago, investment literature wouldn't have focused on it. I know, it's a kick in the teeth if you really want a house and can't seem to afford to get into the market. But the idea that you'll permanently lose out only because you don't have your equity parked in a home, and that real estate will always appreciate more than other investments, is also false. I don't know for sure when the boom will end. Maybe not for some years yet. Maybe it's slowed down semi-permanently already and we haven't noticed yet. If I knew that I'd be wealthy myself. But I do know, this recent trend isn't historically sustainable. I don't believe real estate is going to pop any time soon. But I also don't believe that over-market gains are the long-term norm either. So the solution, which I know Uriel has embraced, is this. If you can't afford a mortgage, or prefer not to carry one, invest your available funds in something else instead. People are acting like there's this 20% down payment gate on accruing wealth at all, and that's flatly untrue. I can't tell you what to invest because I'm stuck paying all my available equity toward my mortgage myself. I'm all-in of necessity, just like many others. And it may work out well for me. But honestly ... it may not, either. And just because it's worked well for a while doesn't mean it won't stop tomorrow. Again, not saying I'll go broke any time soon. But the equity I have in my mortgage might actually perform better elsewhere, while I theoretically rented instead of tying it up here. Anyway, just one more observation to make.
  24. Whether you actually still have any chance at any of these firms, or not, my advice would be the same. Attend whatever you've been invited to attend, do your best to act like a normal person, and see what happens next. If you still have any chance at all, then wasting that would be stupid, obviously. If you have no chance at all, then you can still at least take advantage of the opportunity to practice functioning in a professional environment as a normal person. Because holy hell dude, you obviously need that practice!
  25. But you do want to claim you're losing ground - not getting your fair share - you're somehow part of the great mass of screw-over middle-class types that are being taken advantage of by the plutocrats and capitalists. You'll concede you make a high income, but you want to maintain (unless I'm grossly misunderstanding you) that no matter the inequality between your lifestyle and others', you are still on the losing end of whatever trends you hang your hat on. That's fine. You can make that argument. I'll tend to disagree. I'm just saying, you can't make that argument AND point only at a single facet of your lifestyle (i.e. your ability to buy real estate) as evidence. It's nonsense. And I genuinely believe it isn't even benign nonsense. I believe that privileged people (and I indict myself in this, on other topics) are almost unavoidably programmed to find tactics to avoid looking at or acknowledging their own privilege. It isn't an accident when these topics get piled on one another. It a way for people who are undeniably economic winners to manage to portray themselves as losers. And why do you want to see yourself as a loser? The same reasons anyone wants to deny or distance themselves from any kind of privilege. It relieves you from having to do anything about it. Look, I'm not trying to be insulting, though I probably come across that way. This is a problem not only of individual perspective but in the entire political discourse as well. I first noticed it when I heard politicians describe their policies as being aimed at "working Canadians." This description (which is clever) conflates everything into basically three categories. Unemployed people living entirely on social programs are on one extreme. The idle rich, living entirely off investments and capital are on the other. Everything in between is the same thing - a working Canadian - whether working at a major law firm or for minimum wage at MacDonalds. The notion that our concerns are the same - and don't pretend you didn't do it, above - is a cop out. It allows some of the most privileged people in society to either (a) worry about their own problems first (I can't buy a detached house! And servants are so expensive these days!) and/or (b) conflate their own problems into the same bucket as everyone's such that any solution at least has to address both. I.e. make parental leave tax deductible, or increase the tax exempt potion of income. BOTH of which are policies in the new Liberal tax plan, btw, and BOTH of which put more money back in the pockets of anyone who works at all. And I'm not even saying it's the wrong policy, btw. But man, it's a lot easier to talk about the working poor when we don't have to worry about the actual, you know, poor people. We're just worrying about everyone who works. Me, you, and the guy who can't afford groceries for his kids this month. Let's do something about all of us together. Because we need detached houses, and his kids need protein. Equally legitimate issues, in both cases. Anyway, I'm done spewing my class politics. It's getting old. But seriously. Looking only a real estate as a explanation for why you need to care first about how far your six figures don't go anymore, and maybe later caring about everyone else, is a tactic. And that's the bottom line.
×
×
  • Create New...