If I understand him correctly, Adam Carlis' contention was that because of the nature of the law firm structure, young biglaw associates can't be categorized as members of the ruling class, as Veblen and Robinson understand it. I tend to agree with Adam Gold, that a more nuanced understanding of the social strata - that takes into account issues like the social perception and desirability of the work - would seem to place biglaw associates in the upper crust, despite working conditions that might seem more like servitude. Either way, the normitive assertion that associates shouldn't have more freedom, seems, in my opinion, somewhat irrelevant. No one meant to say that associates deserve better or that they shouldn't be grateful for their positions; rather, the idea is to engage Veblen as a way of understanding how those positions fit into our social strata.

-- JuliaS?