SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DizzyG who wrote (1045)11/12/2008 4:12:02 PM
From: TideGlider5 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 103300
 
Buddy is never wrong Diz. Never ever ever ever....now stop it now! <g> He is worse than Kenneth, much worse in that way.



To: DizzyG who wrote (1045)11/12/2008 5:27:57 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 103300
 
Re: "You are free to posit anyway you choose, Buddy..."

Thanks. As are you too.

Re: "I'd also suggest that you read the fine print in the BLS report. Specifically: Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals include occupations not shown separately. Estimates do not include self-employed workers."

Now THAT's useful stuff.

Not including self-employed lawyers could Easily explain why the BLS's count of lawyers was a bit less than 1/2 the size of the ABA's count!

Now... if you can only come up with something that shows that most of these 'self-employed' lawyers (i.e., obviously NOT employed at big corporate law firms!) are making MORE than the media income reported by the government (the BLS's data --- by their own explanation --- is draw from the lawyers who are *not* self-employed...) then you might be one you way to supporting your earlier assumption of 'greater income'....

Again --- admittedly, only a guess --- my guess would be that the average income for all of the lawyers employed at all of the big legal firms (what the gvt. is counting) is most likely GREATER than the average income of the self-employed single practitioners....