NY law schools inflate job figures: critics

     Although, it is the unwritten policy of this blogger never to give lawyers one iota of sympathy, in this case it would be cruel and unusual punishment to ignore their economic plight. I wish them well in this tight economy. --------lee 

By CHRISTINE PARKER

Last Updated: 10:00 AM, March 11, 2012

     Deciding on a law school is a numbers game: cost versus reward.
     The stick is $150,000+ for studies, but the carrot is a great-paying job. But maybe not, according to recent graduates from the city’s elite law schools, who relied on job placement after getting their sheepskins.
     Critics of local law schools say Columbia, NYU and Fordham overpromise the economic benefit of a degree, inflating the number of students who find employment after graduation — and how much those jobs pay.
     “My life will be fairly uncomfortable for the next several decades,” said a third-year Columbia Law School student who borrowed $170,000 to attend and ended up with a job in which he will earn between $50,000 and $60,000.

     Deciding on a law school is a numbers game: cost versus reward.

     The stick is $150,000+ for studies, but the carrot is a great-paying job. But maybe not, according to recent graduates from the city’s elite law schools, who relied on job placement after getting their sheepskins.

     Critics of local law schools say Columbia, NYU and Fordham overpromise the economic benefit of a degree, inflating the number of students who find employment after graduation — and how much those jobs pay.

     “My life will be fairly uncomfortable for the next several decades,” said a third-year Columbia Law School student who borrowed $170,000 to attend and ended up with a job in which he will earn between $50,000 and $60,000.

For more ...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/cap_and_groans_Pt9SRPFvVJiikhlWFCzasJ 

GENERATING BALANCED DEMAND AND SUPPLY TO ACHIEVE FULL EMPLOYMENT AND PRICE STABILITY

from buoyantecoomies.com

by Leigh Harkness

1. Introduction

The attainment of full employment and price stability are not conflicting objectives, they are

complementary. If we are to raise employment, we must raise the demand for, and supply of,

products. Inflation reduces the real value of money, thereby reducing both demand and

supply in the economy.

This paper explains how an economy can raise real demand and supply to bring about full

employment while maintaining price stability. Full employment and price stability cannot be

forced onto countries. They must want it and implement the appropriate policies, in their

own time. The approach presented here can be implemented unilaterally by any country

when they want it. It does not need an international organisation to police it. If it wer

adopted globally, it could achieve full employment and price stability in the global economy.

2. The Problem

2.1 Unemployment

But before we can solve unemployment and inflation, we must explain what is causing these

problems. Figure 1 shows the number of unemployed persons in the USA since 1948. It

clearly reveals that since 1973, when the US floated its exchange rate, unemployment has

increased and stayed high.

Figure 1.

Unemployment USA

to read complete article

The Starting Point

from channeling reality.com
by Vicky Davis
May 7, 2010

Yesterday as I was listening to the U.S. Senate debate the financial reform legislation pertaining to Consumer Protection, it seemed to me that the Senators were more like squabbling juveniles than statesmen.  But both sides did make good points for why the other side's proposal was bad.  And they were right.  Both proposals are bad.   

The Republicans wanted a Consumer Protection section added to the FDIC.  Obviously, the FDIC doesn't have authority over all financial institutions in which a Consumer might need regulatory protection so the Republican solution is inadequate.  

The Democrat's proposal put the Consumer Protection function under the control of the Federal Reserve with no reporting requirements and no oversight by Congress - and no funding from Congress.  The Federal Reserve had regulatory authority over mortgage lending but they chose not to exercise it.  The Federal Reserve is charged with the responsibility to ensure full employment and control of inflation.  Under Alan Greenspan's watch, they redefined inflation to mean rises in workers wages and he recommended to Congress that they flood our labor market with imported workers while the major corporations were exporting high dollar jobs to India.  Apparently, Greenspan expanded his mandate for full employment to mean the entire world - rather than just the United States.  It was Greenspan's philosophy of self-regulation for financial institutions, the redefinition of inflation and his recommendations to Congress that led to the meltdown of our economy and now the Democrats want to give them regulatory authority to "protect" us?  Really?
They also discussed the size of the banks and the consolidation in the banking industry after the repeal of Glass-Stegell.  In the 1990's, the banks apparently argued that they need the repeal so that they could compete with European banks.  One of the banks apparently is now a $2 trillion bank.  I believe one of the Senators said that the top 5 banks represent 63% of our GDP.  That is in incredible statistic. Part of the discussion was "Too big to fail" and "To big to live"  but I didn't hear "Too big to audit" which is really a significant consideration that they aren't even discussing.  And where is the benefit to the American people and our country in having banks that much control over the economy? According to a report by the Federal Reserve, there is no benefit in terms of economies of sale for banks over $100 billion. 
to read complete article

Millennials forced to put lives on hold

When you ignore common sense patriotism for temporary profits, the lives of your children and your children's children are destroyed.  If you love your children, end offshoring, outsourcing and illegal immigration now!---rng

The Washington Times

Sunday

February 19, 2012

By Patrice Hill

Nicholas Rastenis has been through the wringer. After getting a master’s degree in fine arts from Yale University in 2008, he expected to land a job at a top design firm. But nearly four years later, after many months of joblessness, austerity and anxiety, his ambitions in life have come down quite a bit.

Today, the Chicago resident toils at a photo lab at a major drugstore chain for $9 an hour and no benefits, using few of his creative design skills and earning only a fraction of what he once thought he could command. Still, he has had some designing gigs on the side, and he is glad to at least have a full-time job — any job — after years of doing without.

Mr. Rastenis, like many others of his generation, is a prime victim of the Great Recession. By most measures, he and his compatriots in their teens, 20s and early 30s bore the brunt of the worst job market in modern times. Even with slow economic improvement in the past two years, these so-called “Millennials” remain unemployed and underemployed at the highest rates of any group.

“It’s been a very hard road,” said Mr. Rastenis, who has taken jobs such as bike-cabbing and waiting tables to make ends meet while trying to land a full-time position in his profession.

“I’m doing things I never thought I’d be doing. I’m starting to question why I went to college. I could have done these jobs out of high school,” he said. “And not having an apartment or anything else … I’m miserable.”

Mr. Rastenis knows he’s not alone. It seems nearly everyone he knows in his age group is facing similar problems. “Nobody in the age range 20 to 35 are where they want to be right now,” he said.

to read complete article

Gallup Finds Unemployment Climbing to Nine Percent in February

By Matt Cover

February 20, 2012

     (CNSNews.com) – Unemployment in the U.S. rose to nine percent in mid-February, up from 8.3 percent a month earlier, according to a new Gallup survey. The polling company said this suggests that it is “premature” to assume the economy will not feature prominently in the 2012 election season.
Gallup figures typically provide an indication of what the government will report at the end of the month.
     “The U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 9.0% in mid-February,” Gallup said in its mid-month unemployment survey, released on February 17. “The mid-month reading normally reflects what the U.S. government reports for the entire month, and is up from 8.3% in mid-January.”


For more ....

Obama Economic Plan To Discourage Outsourcing, Reward 'Insourcing'

Just in time for the election.  Remember how he was going to renegotiate NAFTA?  All he has to do is restore tariffs and the problem is solved.  Or is it just a cynical ploy to ensnare the working and middle classes?  Meanwhile, the brain dead Republicans still can't figure out that you can't cut benefits and balance the budget when people don't have jobs and can't pay taxes.  It is depressing.---rng

from the Huffington Post.

WASHINGTON -- On the heels of President Barack Obama's State of the Union address, senior economic advisers to the president on Wednesday shared more details on Obama's blueprint for the economy, including a plan to strip incentives for companies to move jobs overseas and instead encourage the return of manufacturing jobs to U.S. soil.

Arguing that the country should build on the relative strength of its manufacturing sector, National Economic Council (NEC) Director Gene Sperling told reporters that Congress needs to remove the tax deductions that corporations can claim on moving expenses when they ship jobs overseas. In addition, he said the president is proposing a 20 percent income tax credit for companies that choose to bring jobs back to the U.S. Taken together, the two measures would be revenue-neutral, Sperling added.

"Moving jobs is not something we should be subsidizing," Sperling said. "The companies have a 

to read complete article

America was once the nation the rest of the world looked up to

from Dregs of the Future

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country."  Woodrow Wilson

At a Glance

The degeneration of the US political structure into criminal insanity is something historians will ponder for a very long time.

What happened?

The 1% have rigged the system to capture a larger and larger share of the world’s wealth and power, while the middle class and poor face unemployment, soaring student debt burdens, homelessness, exclusion from the medical system, and the disappearance of retirement savings. (Source)

People´s basic democratic rights have been set aside in order to safeguard the investments of the conglomerates of banks. (Source)

George Orwell in his book 1984, that eerily reminds us of today, wrote:

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.

So what? 

If we are to have a future that involves individual liberty, understanding the nature of the boot on our face is the most important thing to know. (Source)

.

The Nature of the Boot on Our Face . . .

The US money supply has more impact on citizens day to day lives than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches–yet is under the control of an unaudited, privately held bank, the Fed.

Leaving the money supply in private hands is dangerous and unacceptable — it negates the balancing of powers principle of our constitution and creates an aristocracy – a plutocracy — the rule by wealth.

.

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. –President Woodrow Wilson – In The New Freedom (1913)

Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws. – International Banker, Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

Do you know what’s actually a threat to our democracy? The fact thatno matter who we vote for, we end up with the same stupid shit. (Source)

See also: Famous quotes about international bankers, and History of the “Money Changers”

.

US Presidents discuss the Boot on Our Face:

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. — President James Madison

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. — President Woodrow Wilson, 1919.

to read complete article