...

Markets never meet 100% of need, but that doesn’t mean there is ~no market.~

There are a lot of “market solutions” to problems that involve finding ways to expand markets so that those who used to be priced out can now participate. https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/1342538478677061632

Being priced out of purchasing services in a market does not mean there is no demand. Finding a way to stop pricing people out when there is massive demand at a lower price point is a valid economic strategy.

Government assistance to help people who are priced out of necessary services is also a valid economic strategy.

This is like saying there’s “no market” for rural internet.

“The market is not currently able to meet demand for this service at the available pricepoint” is accurate. That is a very different statement from “there is no market.”

You can already look at some fairly innovative things people have done in the legal world to meet demand for certain kinds of legal services.

LegalZoom for instance, is a lot better than just not having a will. FairShake is mass-filing arbitration suits against huge companies.

Market pressure exerted by people needing legal services they can’t afford is already having an impact, which would be impossible if there was “no market.”

And this annoys me because the underlying claim being made is, “law students just need to admit they want to work for large corporations and have few other options.”

The legal job market is a lot more complicated than that, but I don’t think law students are well served by someone telling them that they should stop having an imagination.

Okay, I’m doing work (sorry, Christmas) but this still is just annoying me.

The context of this discussion is an argument over whether six figures in loans would allow more lawyers to do work for underserved people.

You can’t point to what the market supports NOW, in a world where lawyers are graduating with $200K in student loan debt, as proof of what they do without it.