Do lawyers really make that much money?

[Trigger 154]

I was briefly worried that Trigger spoiled my joke by not getting it. But after a moment, I find it much funnier this way.

 

P.S. Extra humour points for lacking sufficient imagination to grasp that money represents a social construct, which is therefore inherently subject to interpretation and debate. Because really, I can come to grips with someone prepared to defend why and how society distributes and allocates wealth, even when it goes in gross disproportion to the wealthy. There's no coming to grips with someone who thinks there is a God-given right to own shares in a company that owns equity in a mining interest that's working a mine somewhere in Africa and profiting off the labour of the people who work there. Again, it's one thing to defend the system we have, and to argue it's good. It's another thing entirely to be unable to see it's a system at all and imagine that "it's mine, I earned it, obviously" is a sufficient and complete answer.

Yeah your god complex is hilarious. Very funny. Tee hehe.

 

Exploitation of labour is how profits are made. That's how things work. There isn't a system on the face of the earth that works any better than capitalism.

[Trigger 154]

I was briefly worried that Trigger spoiled my joke by not getting it. But after a moment, I find it much funnier this way.

 

P.S. Extra humour points for lacking sufficient imagination to grasp that money represents a social construct, which is therefore inherently subject to interpretation and debate. Because really, I can come to grips with someone prepared to defend why and how society distributes and allocates wealth, even when it goes in gross disproportion to the wealthy. There's no coming to grips with someone who thinks there is a God-given right to own shares in a company that owns equity in a mining interest that's working a mine somewhere in Africa and profiting off the labour of the people who work there. Again, it's one thing to defend the system we have, and to argue it's good. It's another thing entirely to be unable to see it's a system at all and imagine that "it's mine, I earned it, obviously" is a sufficient and complete answer.

Maybe I "don't have the vocabulary" for this conversation though right? Because you're the hot shot, profound legal mind of the Internet and I'm just Trigger.

 

Edit: Perhaps I could just refer to myself in the third person (the way you do) to offset my limited vocab?

Edited February 28, 2017 by Trigger

[beentheredonethat4 300]

I

For most Canadians that's a lot of money, that puts you in the top 10% or so of income earners in Canada.

 

 

You only need to make $80,000 a year to be in the top 10% of Canadians. Cutoff for top 5% is $102,800, and cutoff for top 1% is $191,100. So $130,000/year likely puts you in the top 2 or 3% of Canadian income earners (and definitely in the top 5%). 

 

 

BlockedQueecois nailed it.

 

also, while 130k puts a person in the top 2-3%, it is disingenuous to look at that number alone. For instance, I'd rather be a top 8% income earner as a teacher (94 thousand a year in Ontario) working 8 and half months a year, plus receiving 15 sick days and a pension, than a lawyer making 100k a year working double the hours. That is not to say that 100k is bad at all, but there is usually more to the story than simply the gross number. 

[Diplock 13609]

Maybe I "don't have the vocabulary" for this conversation though right? Because you're the hot shot, profound legal mind of the Internet and I'm just Trigger.

 

Edit: Perhaps I could just refer to myself in the third person (the way you do) to offset my limited vocab?

 

You know, even leaving aside the snark, you really don't have the intellectual vocabulary for the discussion you're trying to have. I know you'll be insulted to hear that, because no one likes to hear they can't do something, but it's true. I remember when I was a student and thought I knew fucking everything. Now, I know you find my tone insufferable, but if you pay attention you'll find I'm very rarely sure about almost anything. I have some strong opinions, but very few certainties. There's a difference.

 

So here, while you may not want it, is a learning opportunity. When you say "There isn't a system on the face of the earth that works any better than capitalism" do you even believe that's a complete thought? How can you defend that idea, or attack it, or even bring it into a discussion, without defining what you believe "works" about capitalism? I could probably complete the thought for you and suggest that capitalism generates wealth product better than any other economic system, but by specifying what "works" about capitalism you expose the underlying problem - that another system could "work" better if you simply redefine the goal. And are you prepared to defend the idea that simply generating wealth, with no regard to how it's used or distributed, represents the highest goal of human existence? Again, I'm not even suggesting that position can't be defended. Very smart and worthy thinkers have done so, and well. But if you imagine it's obvious, and doesn't even need defending ... that's where ignorance creeps in.

 

You offer throwaway lines that truly have about as much content as the promise to "Make America Great Again." I'm not actually offended by it. Everyone goes through that phase. But you either learn, or you don't. If I'm a massive asshole about the tough love it's because truly, I had to be put in my place hard before I reexamined my own certainties. And I'm thankful for the people who did that.

 

Seriously. The template was a joke. And it's hilarious. Trust me. I know.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Diplock

[Trigger 154]

You know, even leaving aside the snark, you really don't have the intellectual vocabulary for the discussion you're trying to have. I know you'll be insulted to hear that, because no one likes to hear they can't do something, but it's true. I remember when I was a student and thought I knew fucking everything. Now, I know you find my tone insufferable, but if you pay attention you'll find I'm very rarely sure about almost anything. I have some strong opinions, but very few certainties. There's a difference.

 

So here, while you may not want it, is a learning opportunity. When you say "There isn't a system on the face of the earth that works any better than capitalism" do you even believe that's a complete thought? How can you defend that idea, or attack it, or even bring it into a discussion, without defining what you believe "works" about capitalism? I could probably complete the thought for you and suggest that capitalism generates wealth product better than any other economic system, but by specifying what "works" about capitalism you expose the underlying problem - that another system could "work" better if you simply redefine the goal. And are you prepared to defend the idea that simply generating wealth, with no regard to how it's used or distributed, represents the highest goal of human existence? Again, I'm not even suggesting that position can't be defended. Very smart and worthy thinkers have done so, and well. But if you imagine it's obvious, and doesn't even need defending ... that's where ignorance creeps in.

 

You offer throwaway lines that truly have about as much content as the promise to "Make America Great Again." I'm not actually offended by it. Everyone goes through that phase. But you either learn, or you don't. If I'm a massive asshole about the tough love it's because truly, I had to be put in my place hard before I reexamined my own certainties. And I'm thankful for the people who did that.

 

Seriously. The template was a joke. And it's hilarious. Trust me. I know.

 

I am not trying to have any discussion about capitalism or whatever other system you advocate for. You are the one who has been going around to completely unrelated threads (this one is a prime example), spewing out this pinko nonsense about wealth distribution and communist ideas when that is not even close to what the topic of this discussion is.

 

And the matter is already so settled in my mind that there is nothing you or anyone can say that will persuade me otherwise. I think the most hilarious thing in this thread (believe it or not, it's not your "joke" template) is the idea that there are educated people who think communism is a good idea. Like it's just mind blowing to me. I assume that's what you're saying since though since you aren't really elaborating about how this idea of yours would actually work, absent capitalism?

[BlockedQuebecois 4842]

And the matter is already so settled in my mind that there is nothing you or anyone can say that will persuade me otherwise.

 

Regardless of your ideology (or any ideology), having ideas so deeply settled in your mind that even incontrovertible evidence against your ideology will fail to influence your ideology is incredibly stupid. 

 

Maybe that's the scientist in me speaking up though.  

Edited February 28, 2017 by BlockedQuebecois

[Yogurt Baron 1744]

I can guarantee you that if you polled every would-be law student in the universe and asked them from whom they'd rather receive advice between a successful, practicing lawyer and entrepreneur and a right-wing troll who has yet to attend law school or contribute anything to the universe other than incoherent jabbering about his garbage opinions (as if that matters), the vote would be literally unanimous. That would be true even if the respective IQs of the latter was double that of the former, as opposed to the reverse.

 

Diplock is being very kind in saying that you - a 0L - "don't have the intellectual vocabulary" for the conversation you're trying to have, in that vocabulary can be learned.  The simple fact, which no one could deny, is that you simply don't have the intellect. I mean, you've just characterized a successful entrepreneur and practicing lawyer giving someone practical advice about economic realities as "spewing out pinko nonsense on (unrelated threads). If you're sincerely too stupid to comprehend the relationship between

a., someone asking lawyers for advice about economic realities of being a lawyer

and

b., a lawyer providing the exact advice that was sought;

you're too stupid to be here. And I don't mean "LS". I mean "the universe".

Edited February 28, 2017 by Yogurt Baron

[Trigger 154]

I can come to grips with someone prepared to defend why and how society distributes and allocates wealth, even when it goes in gross disproportion to the wealthy.

 

The wealthy? Is that a specific list of people? Because the way things work is that who is considered 'wealthy' is always changing. People are always rising to and falling from that category. There is an equality of opportunity to attain material wealth and success but you don't do it by occupying wall street. Maybe a good start for those 'occupy' types is to occupy a job. Or an education to get a job.

[DSman 1485]

Man, this whole place has been very NO CHILL lately. I cant believe this started from an obvious joke post. 

[Yogurt Baron 1744]

But, I mean, by all means, keep demonstrating how stupid you are whilst picking fights with (false modesty aside) two of the most popular people here. That's sure to get you far in a small community in a profession based on collegiality.

[Trigger 154]

I can guarantee you that if you polled every would-be law student in the universe and asked them from whom they'd rather receive advice between a successful, practicing lawyer and entrepreneur and a right-wing troll who has yet to attend law school or contribute anything to the universe other than incoherent jabbering about his garbage opinions (as if that matters), the vote would be literally unanimous. That would be true even if the respective IQs of the latter was double that of the former, as opposed to the reverse.

 

Diplock is being very kind in saying that you - a 0L - "don't have the intellectual vocabulary" for the conversation you're trying to have, in that vocabulary can be learned.  The simple fact, which no one could deny, is that you simply don't have the intellect.

 

Oh you're back. I hope I don't say anything to trigger you into a thread-locking outburst, but I just wanted to ask if I should I start my prison sentence now since I think Jordan Peterson is articulate?

 

I saw a couple of Diplock's posts in this thread that you haven't hit the like button on yet. Still got some work to do YB.

[PredictablyDarwin 623]

 yet to attend law school or contribute anything to the universe other than incoherent jabbering

 

lol

[Yogurt Baron 1744]

lol

 

I've yet to attend law school, that's true, but people who can read seem to find my posts entertaining, and I have a personality, which are two things no one could accuse you of.

[Yogurt Baron 1744]

Like, seriously, people writing hundreds and hundreds of articulate, hilarious words, and your response is "lol". I can just picture it now: "No, Prime Minister, we've got to put the 'lol' guy on the Supreme Court! See how incisive his wit is?"

[PredictablyDarwin 623]

I've yet to attend law school, that's true, but people who can read seem to find my posts entertaining, and I have a personality, which are two things no one could accuse you of.

Lol, chill buddy. I'm just playing

[PropJoe 188]

What the hell just happened in this thread ?

[Yogurt Baron 1744]

Lol, chill buddy. I'm just playing

Sorry, brah. You kind of came at me when I was in a bad place. <3

[Trigger 154]

Okay I'm out of here before I get in trouble from the mods again.

 

PM ME IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE.

[Diplock 13609]

I'm going to offer one more post and back away, because I really do need to get sleep and work tomorrow. And this isn't even a point for Trigger, because apparently he's already convinced he knows what's best.

 

Any discussion about how much money is "a lot" or "enough" unavoidably raises the issue of wealth distribution, and how much the winners should win as compared to the losers who lose. I'm not pretending there are easy answers to this conversation, or that I'm sure what's "right." If I was sure, I'd be guilty of the mirror ignorance that compliment's Trigger's, on this topic. But I know for certain that the topic is engaged in these conversations, either implicitly, or explicitly.

 

No matter how we cut up the pie, there's no question that lawyers in Canada (and probably everywhere, but I don't want to over-generalize) are economic winners. So these conversations about how much we deserve to earn - which is really another way of saying how much more we deserve than the economic losers in society - is really about wealth distribution. Unavoidably so. And you can favor a winner-take-almost-all society, or a more flat distribution. I can respect a range of opinions here. But I really can't understand anyone who fails to see that it's a construct, and a policy decision, rather than a natural law at operation here.

 

And just to further problematize this, for anyone who cares to devote real thought to the topic, it's really not as simple as saying "capitalism" and "communism." Neither has ever existed in a pure form. Pure capitalism would see children and organs for sale on the street, and pure communism would see an end to private possessions. What we really have are examples on a spectrum. And for anyone who happens to care, I'll say that I favor something further down on the spectrum than we currently have in Canada, and what might be termed "socialism." But honestly, all of these terms have so much baggage that it's almost better to do without them. In simple terms, it's just about how much the winners win and how much the losers lose. No one would suggest that the winners deserve to be able to buy the losers' organs, right? So we all believe in limits. But some do believe that the winners should be able to buy the finest medical care available, while the losers die of treatable illnesses. Others call it barbaric to deny medical care to everyone, and so they draw a line beyond which the winners can't win at the losers' expense. Which is really what we're talking about.

 

My basic point is that a range of opinions are reasonable and defensible. But for anyone with the brain power to attend law school, it's simply willful ignorance to not see the complexity of the issue.

[BlockedQuebecois 4842]

I've yet to attend law school, that's true, but people who can read seem to find my posts entertaining, and I have a personality, which are two things no one could accuse you of.

 

Wait why are you being mean to Darwin?