Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

Switched from being an architect once I found out what the job actually entailed. I thought it was all making models and doing drawings. Architects can feel free to comment.

🤣

I mean there is still a fair bit of drawing, but there are a lot of emails.

FWIW, construction lawyers seem to do very well for themselves. Their offices are way swankier than their clients'. I'm not sure they speed the resolution of disputes, but...

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

The better question is why do we have law graduates who settle for secretarial work..

Universities make money out of selling the courses. Once upon a time there was a cap on the number of lawyers being produced by universities, to more closely match the number of positions. But that's not a free market, so it was scrapped.

Such boomer logic.

You want smart people doing jobs that need smart people. You want enough jobs that need smart people that smart people are maximising their potential.

Restricting education is the not the path to riches.

So what is?

I don't mind people like this taking degrees like this, providing it is understood that small number of people will practice law. We don't need more lawyers than are actually practicing.

But I am not convinced the uni course will have had a career expectations module.

And I feel bad for the person in question, having spent 5 years drifting in jobs I didn't think I should have been doing myself. Turns out I was right, but it was hard to tell at the time.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

The better question is why do we have law graduates who settle for secretarial work..

Universities make money out of selling the courses. Once upon a time there was a cap on the number of lawyers being produced by universities, to more closely match the number of positions. But that's not a free market, so it was scrapped.

Such boomer logic.

You want smart people doing jobs that need smart people. You want enough jobs that need smart people that smart people are maximising their potential.

Restricting education is the not the path to riches.

It's nothing to do with boomers. ipRestricted access to professions is a relic of the medieval guild system.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Switched from being an architect once I found out what the job actually entailed. I thought it was all making models and doing drawings. Architects can feel free to comment.

🤣

I mean there is still a fair bit of drawing, but there are a lot of emails.

FWIW, construction lawyers seem to do very well for themselves. Their offices are way swankier than their clients'. I'm not sure they speed the resolution of disputes, but...

I feel your pain. I spent about 30 hours this week on admin and about 15 hours doing what I'm actually good at.

Jezyboy

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

The better question is why do we have law graduates who settle for secretarial work..

Universities make money out of selling the courses. Once upon a time there was a cap on the number of lawyers being produced by universities, to more closely match the number of positions. But that's not a free market, so it was scrapped.

Such boomer logic.

You want smart people doing jobs that need smart people. You want enough jobs that need smart people that smart people are maximising their potential.

Restricting education is the not the path to riches.

So what is?

I don't mind people like this taking degrees like this, providing it is understood that small number of people will practice law. We don't need more lawyers than are actually practicing.

But I am not convinced the uni course will have had a career expectations module.

And I feel bad for the person in question, having spent 5 years drifting in jobs I didn't think I should have been doing myself. Turns out I was right, but it was hard to tell at the time.

Could you not argue that the amount of hours worked by the "big hitter" lawyers in the city show we have insufficient numbers?

First.Aspect

Jezyboy said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

The better question is why do we have law graduates who settle for secretarial work..

Universities make money out of selling the courses. Once upon a time there was a cap on the number of lawyers being produced by universities, to more closely match the number of positions. But that's not a free market, so it was scrapped.

Such boomer logic.

You want smart people doing jobs that need smart people. You want enough jobs that need smart people that smart people are maximising their potential.

Restricting education is the not the path to riches.

So what is?

I don't mind people like this taking degrees like this, providing it is understood that small number of people will practice law. We don't need more lawyers than are actually practicing.

But I am not convinced the uni course will have had a career expectations module.

And I feel bad for the person in question, having spent 5 years drifting in jobs I didn't think I should have been doing myself. Turns out I was right, but it was hard to tell at the time.

Could you not argue that the amount of hours worked by the "big hitter" lawyers in the city show we have insufficient numbers?

I'm not in that industry, but in mine there are big hitters who want to pitch toward £1M salaries and who do terrible things to themselves to do so. There's no shortage of people who would be happy to earn £250k and do a quarter of the work, including me. So I agree that a bit of delegation of both money and work would make things work better.

My understanding is that the golden circle firms use people up when they are young, by dangling the big carrot, and it is even more extreme.

Jezyboy

First.Aspect said:

Jezyboy said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

The better question is why do we have law graduates who settle for secretarial work..

Universities make money out of selling the courses. Once upon a time there was a cap on the number of lawyers being produced by universities, to more closely match the number of positions. But that's not a free market, so it was scrapped.

Such boomer logic.

You want smart people doing jobs that need smart people. You want enough jobs that need smart people that smart people are maximising their potential.

Restricting education is the not the path to riches.

So what is?

I don't mind people like this taking degrees like this, providing it is understood that small number of people will practice law. We don't need more lawyers than are actually practicing.

But I am not convinced the uni course will have had a career expectations module.

And I feel bad for the person in question, having spent 5 years drifting in jobs I didn't think I should have been doing myself. Turns out I was right, but it was hard to tell at the time.

Could you not argue that the amount of hours worked by the "big hitter" lawyers in the city show we have insufficient numbers?

I'm not in that industry, but in mine there are big hitters who want to pitch toward £1M salaries and who do terrible things to themselves to do so. There's no shortage of people who would be happy to earn £250k and do a quarter of the work, including me. So I agree that a bit of delegation of both money and work would make things work better.

My understanding is that the golden circle firms use people up when they are young, by dangling the big carrot, and it is even more extreme.

Maybe it's different for true big hitters, but I imagine the quality of work drops off after x hours a week too?

So having for "mini" big hitters on 250k would be better all around.

I assume the magic circle utterly distorts the graduate market for lawyers, maybe you can still make a decent chunk at a provincial firm.

First.Aspect

Jezyboy said:

First.Aspect said:

Jezyboy said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

The better question is why do we have law graduates who settle for secretarial work..

Universities make money out of selling the courses. Once upon a time there was a cap on the number of lawyers being produced by universities, to more closely match the number of positions. But that's not a free market, so it was scrapped.

Such boomer logic.

You want smart people doing jobs that need smart people. You want enough jobs that need smart people that smart people are maximising their potential.

Restricting education is the not the path to riches.

So what is?

I don't mind people like this taking degrees like this, providing it is understood that small number of people will practice law. We don't need more lawyers than are actually practicing.

But I am not convinced the uni course will have had a career expectations module.

And I feel bad for the person in question, having spent 5 years drifting in jobs I didn't think I should have been doing myself. Turns out I was right, but it was hard to tell at the time.

Could you not argue that the amount of hours worked by the "big hitter" lawyers in the city show we have insufficient numbers?

I'm not in that industry, but in mine there are big hitters who want to pitch toward £1M salaries and who do terrible things to themselves to do so. There's no shortage of people who would be happy to earn £250k and do a quarter of the work, including me. So I agree that a bit of delegation of both money and work would make things work better.

My understanding is that the golden circle firms use people up when they are young, by dangling the big carrot, and it is even more extreme.

Maybe it's different for true big hitters, but I imagine the quality of work drops off after x hours a week too?

So having for "mini" big hitters on 250k would be better all around.

I assume the magic circle utterly distorts the graduate market for lawyers, maybe you can still make a decent chunk at a provincial firm.

You can. My boss is in Glasgow and is on something in the £900k range. In my industry, no one cares where in Europe or the world you laptop happens to be.

He has no life though, because that's the trade off.

Law is an odd one. There is a very long tail on the solicitor side of things, doing grunt work - conveyancing, estate law, personal injuries, wills, etc. The partners do well - low to mid-100's, but the person you speak to when you go into an office will be fairly averagely paid and bored out of their minds in all likelihood.

At least, I think anything with 6 figures is okay, but it is easy to lose perspective as this forum shows.

pinno

Does this mean that firms with employees/partners obligated to paying those in the higher pay grades are less likely to take on graduates/trainees because they cannot afford to?

First.Aspect

pinno said:

Does this mean that firms with employees/partners obligated to paying those in the higher pay grades are less likely to take on graduates/trainees because they cannot afford to?

More like it surpresses the salaries at the associate level and creates a log jam of people trying to be partners.

lesfirth

Stevo_666 said:

Often having to brake to join the main carriageway at the end of a slip road annoys me.

You need to learn how to drive. read Highway code 259...check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane.

pinno

lesfirth said:

Stevo_666 said:

Often having to brake to join the main carriageway at the end of a slip road annoys me.

You need to learn how to drive. read Highway code 259...check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane.

But that's boring.

Anyway, if I saw Stevo in my wing mirror hammering down the slip road ('cos accelerating downhill is great fun), i'd slow the f.ucker down.

I did that to a tw@t in a stretched limmo trying to merge on to the M4 near Reading. He came down the slip road quickly and I could see his expectation that I was going to start braking or changing lane to let him in but there was no changing lane as the middle and fast lanes were full and flowing quickly. I didn't want to start braking as there was a vehicle reasonably close behind me. So he ended up braking hard and coming to a standstill on the slip road.
When he passed me some 5 miles later he was gesticulating something about self gratification.

pblakeney

People on slip roads that forget it is effectively a give way.
It is nice to be nice but sometimes not practical.

Stevo_666

lesfirth said:

Stevo_666 said:

Often having to brake to join the main carriageway at the end of a slip road annoys me.

You need to learn how to drive. read Highway code 259...check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane.

No gold stars for trying to be patronising...

veronese68

Rick really needs to sort out the boomer chip on his shoulder. Every time I read it I roll my eyes and ignore his whining as it just shows his prejudice rather than being a reasoned argument.

First.Aspect

Most of the people he thinks are boomers aren't boomers either.

Pross

pblakeney said:

People on slip roads that forget it is effectively a give way.
It is nice to be nice but sometimes not practical.

It’s not supposed to be a give way, it should be merge with equal priority.

veronese68

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

People on slip roads that forget it is effectively a give way.
It is nice to be nice but sometimes not practical.

It’s not supposed to be a give way, it should be merge with equal priority.

I wouldn't quite have said it was a full give way, more a question of spot a likely gap and match your speed so you can merge fluidly without screwing things up for anyone. Rather than piling in and expecting others to deal with it. That's to say the onus is on the person joining to fit in

pblakeney

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

People on slip roads that forget it is effectively a give way.
It is nice to be nice but sometimes not practical.

It’s not supposed to be a give way, it should be merge with equal priority.

I suggest reading the first point of Rule 259.

pinno

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

People on slip roads that forget it is effectively a give way.
It is nice to be nice but sometimes not practical.

It’s not supposed to be a give way, it should be merge with equal priority.

I wouldn't quite have said it was a full give way, more a question of spot a likely gap and match your speed so you can merge fluidly without screwing things up for anyone. Rather than piling in and expecting others to deal with it. That's to say the onus is on the person joining to fit in

This ^.

Stevo_666

pinno said:

lesfirth said:

Stevo_666 said:

Often having to brake to join the main carriageway at the end of a slip road annoys me.

You need to learn how to drive. read Highway code 259...check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane.

But that's boring.

Anyway, if I saw Stevo in my wing mirror hammering down the slip road ('cos accelerating downhill is great fun), i'd slow the f.ucker down.

I find that slower cars often try to do that

It's a bit like the sort of tw@tt who drives around too slowly holding up lots of others but then tries to accelerate when you overtake him. Room 101 awaits for those types of drivers...

mully79

…

Stevo_666 said:

pinno said:

lesfirth said:

Stevo_666 said:

Often having to brake to join the main carriageway at the end of a slip road annoys me.

You need to learn how to drive. read Highway code 259...check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane.

But that's boring.

Anyway, if I saw Stevo in my wing mirror hammering down the slip road ('cos accelerating downhill is great fun), i'd slow the f.ucker down.

I find that slower cars often try to do that

It's a bit like an Electric car driver who drives around too slowly holding up lots of others but then tries to accelerate when you overtake him. Room 101 awaits for those types of drivers...

Stevo_666

mully79 said:

…

Stevo_666 said:

pinno said:

lesfirth said:

Stevo_666 said:

Often having to brake to join the main carriageway at the end of a slip road annoys me.

You need to learn how to drive. read Highway code 259...check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane.

But that's boring.

Anyway, if I saw Stevo in my wing mirror hammering down the slip road ('cos accelerating downhill is great fun), i'd slow the f.ucker down.

I find that slower cars often try to do that

It's a bit like an Electric car driver who drives around too slowly holding up lots of others but then tries to accelerate when you overtake him. Room 101 awaits for those types of drivers...

It's usually codgers in my experience. Mind you, that generally means they're driving a shyte far that's easy to overtake even when they're trying to stop you. If my window is open I give them a friendly wave after I've passed

lesfirth

Stevo_666 said:

lesfirth said:

Stevo_666 said:

Often having to brake to join the main carriageway at the end of a slip road annoys me.

You need to learn how to drive. read Highway code 259...check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane.

No gold stars for trying to be patronising...

Just being a smart ar*e. What 259 really means is that you identify a gap in the inside lane where some dozy person cant keep up with the car in front before you glide through the said gap and fire off down the out.er lanes.

Anyway ,this morning went out early before it got to hot. Ridding along 40mph rural A road . Bit of a tail wind and tramming along at a good pace.Nobody else in sight and traffic lights in front have defaulted to red for the A road. I think its traffic calming but i have to stop. Sure annoyed me and would not help the planet with cars stopping and accelerating again for no practical reason.

Stevo_666

lesfirth said:

Stevo_666 said:

lesfirth said:

Stevo_666 said:

Often having to brake to join the main carriageway at the end of a slip road annoys me.

You need to learn how to drive. read Highway code 259...check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane.

No gold stars for trying to be patronising...

Just being a smart ar*e. What 259 really means is that you identify a gap in the inside lane where some dozy person cant keep up with the car in front before you glide through the said gap and fire off down the out.er lanes.

Anyway ,this morning went out early before it got to hot. Ridding along 40mph rural A road . Bit of a tail wind and tramming along at a good pace.Nobody else in sight and traffic lights in front have defaulted to red for the A road. I think its traffic calming but i have to stop. Sure annoyed me and would not help the planet with cars stopping and accelerating again for no practical reason.

My initial post was a bit tongue in cheek BTW.

But yep, most things labelled as 'traffic calming' usually have the effect of annoying drivers.

orraloon

You're rid(d)ing at 40mph+? Aye right. Is this another Cargobike?

focuszing723

Boomer haters should only be able to have a grievance if they were hatched. If not, then you were created by them so you should be silent by complicity.

pinno

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

People on slip roads that forget it is effectively a give way.
It is nice to be nice but sometimes not practical.

It’s not supposed to be a give way, it should be merge with equal priority.

I wouldn't quite have said it was a full give way, more a question of spot a likely gap and match your speed so you can merge fluidly without screwing things up for anyone. Rather than piling in and expecting others to deal with it. That's to say the onus is on the person joining to fit in

This ^.

Pross

One arm of traffic lights has to be on red at any given time, it’s not ‘traffic calming’ it’s just part of their safe operation.

pinno

orraloon said:

You're rid(d)ing at 40mph+? Aye right. Is this another Cargobike?

I think he meant that the speed limit was 40mph. I think.