This nonsense signals the fact that it's time for our semi-annual debunking of the "unemployment rate" claim. Cooley Law School unveiled this pitch in August 2011, reporting the BLS estimate that only 1.5% of lawyers were unemployed in 2010. Denver's Law School is the most recent enthusiast for this factoid. The statistic suggests that 98.5% of the people who want to practice law, and who have the proper license, are able to do so. Right?
Wrong. The BLS number means that 98.5% of the people who have worked as lawyers, and who want to keep working, are able to work at least one hour a week in some job. They may have mowed their neighbor's lawn for $15. They may be working at Starbucks. They may even be running a locomotive, a job that requires only a high school degree and some hands-on training. Heck, as NALP says, "you can do almost anything with a law degree!"
If you want to review (yet again!) why the BLS unemployment rate is misleading, I invite you to join me here. Along the way, I note that the very same BLS numbers generating these positive-sounding unemployment rates also show:
- The number of practicing lawyers fell during the last year, from an estimated 1,085,000 in 2011 to just 1,061,000 in 2012. That's despite all of those 2011 graduates who were sworn in to the bar in November 2011.
- Although more than 100,000 women have graduated from law school during the last five years, there are 19,000 fewer women practicing law today than there were in 2008.
First?
ReplyDeleteDamn it!
DeleteHow about a little warning next time, LawProf?
El segundo
ReplyDeleteKind of raises the question of who decides to define the unemployed guy as a "lawyer" - or a train conductor, for that matter.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the unemployment numbers are being cooked ... but has it always been this way? When unemployment hit 25 percent in 1932, for example, was the government counting the people who had given up looking?
How is this "recovery" doing according to the yardstick they were using back in 1932??
"When unemployment hit 25 percent in 1932, for example, was the government counting the people who had given up looking? "
DeleteThat's a good question; from my casual knowledge, the answer is that decent statistical work by the US government really started in the New Deal, so God only knows what they were counting in 1932.
You know what they say about statistics:
ReplyDelete"Barbara Weinzierl, director of career planning and placement for the [University of Akron] law school ... said the placement rate for Akron’s law school graduates is 90.5 percent — compared to the national average of 87.9 percent — with an average salary of $57,856."
http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x1959344572/Ohio-law-schools-see-drop-in-enrollment?zc_p=1
FIRST - ha, ha suckas!!!!
ReplyDeleteI be the first one!
Wait, I am not the first, dammit. That's so unfair!
The key problem with the unemployment rate for any job category is that the BLS bases it on the person's last job. So if someone was never employed as a lawyer, or their last job was non law - e.g. Barista, they don't count as an unemployed lawyer. Given the huge proportion of JDs that end up taking non-lawyer jobs, the unemployment rate is very deceptive
ReplyDeleteAlso, people who have been unemployed for more than six months are assumed not to be looking for work.
DeleteI have said this before but I guess it bears repeating: the BLS statistics are inaccurate because they do not include as unemployed attorneys those who were unable to find jobs as attorneys. They only include those who at one point worked as attorneys and then lost their job.
ReplyDeleteSince unemployment is disproportionately affecting younger attorneys, not including them is missing the majority of unemployed attorneys. Also, as you indicated, DJM, those who go on to other jobs (Starbucks barrista) are not counted as unemployed attorneys, since they are WORKING. Since few of us are trust fund babies and have to work for a living, when we don't find lawyer work, we HAVE TO move on to something else. So there is a huge proportion of us that haven't been included in BLS figures.
How much? When I reflect on the fellow graduates I know, about 70% of them were either in retail jobs or volunteering for free in the hopes it would lead to a legal job. So when deans are reporting 1 or 2% unemployment rates, they are doing a disservice (as if they cared) to the majority of their graduates. Not only are we unemployed, but then we are ignored, not included in the statistics, and become non-existent.
Honesty, I can't understand how anyone can stand to stay in this profession. It treats its members like absolute shit, starting with law school. I have since moved into another profession and am much happier. It is so nice to be treated like a human being with supportive colleagues. I don't get why anyone would choose to stay in a profession when it is clear they are not wanted and you constantly have to watch your back for the knife that will be thrust into it the minute you turn. Without the money (and that no longer exists) is there any reason to stay in this trash heap of a profession? I can't think of a single one...
Confirmed. No reason to stay in this godforsaken "profession."
DeleteI am afraid you are not correct when you say: "[t]hey only include those who at one point worked as attorneys and then lost their job."
DeleteThe BLS data will only include that person for the period that their last job was as a lawyer. So for example if a laid off Dewey associate took a job driving a taxi, the next time he/she would be unemployed they would be considered a taxi-driver.
The result of this sensible rule that an unemployed person is categorised by their last job (you have to be consistent and would you count the person twice as a lawyer and taxi-driver) is that when people drop out of the legal profession and take a any sort of job - real estate, bar-tending, etc. that job will be their next unemployment category.
Indeed, the use of the unemployment statistics to show how versatile the JD is - and arguments about that versatility misses this point - someone forced to take a non-legal employment path does not count as an unemployed lawyer in BLS data. The only really sensible answer is to take the number of likely extant JD holders and compare it with the number of reported employed lawyers.
There were about 1,340,000 JDs awarded between 1974 and 2008 by ABA schools (reported on law school transparency.) Since then another roughy 170,000 have been awarded to take us to around 1.5 million - add in the unaccredited law schools for another 50-70,000. So there are around 1.5-1.6 million extant holders of a law degree that would allow them to become a lawyer.
BLS data for the number of employed lawyers is not that clear. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm
shows a number of 728,000 figure in 2010 - but at:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes231011.htm
it gives a number of 570,000.
Meanwhile BLS has another category Lawyers, Judges, and Related Workers were JD holders for which they say there are 820,700.
However, no matter how you look at the numbers there are between 1 million and 700,000 missing lawyers. The best way to understand this is that they do not appear in the BLS data because their last job was non-legal or they never secured a legal job out of law school.
Also, if you are self-employed, such as a solo practice, and you can't find work then you do not count as unemployed.
DeleteCorrect, 5:16, and since self-employed people cannot participate in the unemployment insurance system the solo who goes under is off the rader.
DeleteI used to say that there is no such thing an an unemployed lawyer because you could always represent clients.
ReplyDeleteI used to think that was a good thing. The follies of youth.
Jack Marshall??
DeleteBLS also counts as employed (I believe) anyone who has even 1 paid hour of work per week. Well, okay, they have to have a cutoff, but ... an hour?
ReplyDeleteThey also don't count as unemployed, anyone who hasn't looked for a job in a rather recent time. People who have given up looking after two years and 2,000 applications ... are no longer officially unemployed.
But that's where the U6 figure comes in handy. Gallup also provides a series:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx
LOL the legal "profession."
ReplyDeleteThe american populace is manipulated via an orwellian system of statistical propaganda. I do not believe any of the BLS stats.
ReplyDeleteWhere can I find out about this train conductor opportunity?
ReplyDeleteSend Amtrak an application along with a photocopy of your J.D. That will certainly you a job. Only failed losers don't take advantage of such an incredibly versatile doctorate.
DeleteThe difference between railroad jobs and legal jobs is that the railroad unions effectively run a guild. They control who gets into the union and thus make damned sure that there will never be a surplus of engineers or conductors. If you have a surplus you get unemployment and after a while some of those unemployed engineers and conductors might be tempted to cross a picket line.
DeleteThe advantage they have is that unions are exempt from anti-trust laws. But let the ABA try to slow the flood of new lawyers by denying accredidation to some fifth-tier toilet admitting students who in most cases will never pass a bar exam and the USDOJ is all over it.
How can anyone count as being employed if they are only paid for one hour of work a week?
ReplyDeleteNo one can live on one hour of working a week.
If you are collecting unemployment insurance and you pick up some temp work they reduce your benefits for each week you work by a portion of what you earned (I think it's 2/3). Thus if you got paid for one hour at $9.00/hour they'd cut your benefits by $6.00. I agree with you that the person who worked 1 hour is not really employed, but that is the reason it works that way. The system could use some fixing.
DeleteThis methodology doesn't make sense to me.
DeleteThe BLS should be fired. These employment statistics do a disservice to the public and prospective students. The BLS is a contributor to the glut of lawyers by publishing misleading statistics.
ReplyDeleteWhat misleading statistics? The BLS published data according to a clear methodology. It counts the number of people employed as lawyers. It counts the number of people whose last job was as a lawyer. Law schools are cherry-picking the data and misrepresenting what it says - that does not mean the data is false but that it is being misused.
DeleteIf you read the BLS data carefully it tells you important information - and the BLS has also published important information. The most important item of data to come out of the BLS is that there will be over the rest of the decade about 18-22,000 new lawyer jobs a year- against a JD graduation rate at ABA schools of 40-50,000 - that is the BLS data item that the public and prospective students need to internalise - that there are only jobs for between 40-50% of the law graduates now in the pipeline.
The BLS also publishes fairly reliable data - and dat by metro area on what lawyers earnings are - and for that matter law professors. On the BLS you will find the statistic that there are around 12,000 law professors - so that a cut of 1/2 of 3/4 is 6,000 to 9,000 job losses - hardly the huge tragedy that the law schools will present it as and a fraction of the number of unemployed law graduates each year.
Rather than vituperating against the BLS data - why don't you read it. It was looking at the BLS data that caused me to contact Professor Campos a couple of years ago to ask some questions - since so many schools in Washington DC were claiming that 90% plus of their graduates were getting jobs at a median income of $160k which was then significantly higher than the median income for private practice lawyers in DC as a whole (were all new JDs above average lawyers in Year-1?)
The BLS data is a very powerful tool in showing how ludicrous the claims of the law schools are. Go look at it.
The law school scam was unknown until recently precisely because their data on unemployment of lawyers is so meaningless and convoluted. They are doing a horrible job if the goal is to reflect the health of the job market. This misleading unemployment statistic has actually increased unemployment by hundreds of thousands of law grads. The statistic should include all law grads who want to work as lawyers and their median income. That information is not pretty. It is damning to the legal profession.
DeleteMacK is credited. It's not actually "lies, damn lies, and statistics," as many people believe. Statistics have actual mathematical rigor and scientific bases for measurement. It's people who misuse the information that is the problem.
ReplyDeleteIt is, more accurately, "liars, damn liars, and law school Deans."
It is also the fault of people (and in many cases the schools they attended) who cannot grasp statistics. Saw a headline about ho home sales are up X% in my state over last year, but last year was so far down the toilet the statistic does not mean that very many homes are getting sold.
DeleteThe "attorneys" on that NALP page make me so sad. Of course, they're all better off than me.
ReplyDeleteTime to go back to bed.
In any event, the BLS number has to be wrong. I know so many unemployed attorneys. These people meet their definitions. It has to be way over 15% of attorneys are unemployed by their standard.
ReplyDeleteIf a solo with no income who is looking for a job is considered employed, there is a problem here.
ReplyDelete“Congratulations Admin! Thank you so much for taking the time to share this exciting information.”
ReplyDeleteRead More