There is a particular type of client every lawyer has probably encountered at least once.
They call for a quick legal opinion. You spend time listening to the facts, asking questions, explaining the possible legal position and even suggesting what they should consider doing next.
Then you tell them that the matter will require a formal engagement and send the engagement letter. After that, they dissappear.
Now, I understand that sometimes a client simply decides not to proceed. That is fine. Not every inquiry will become a brief. But what I do not understand is trying to get the entire legal advice before deciding whether you want to pay for it.
We know consultation is a billable service. Sometimes we deliberately waive or reduce the fee for the first conversation because we are trying to understand the matter and see whether we can work together.
Please don't mistake that goodwill for free legal service.
Little wonder some lawyers insist on being paid for consultation before saying a word.
Sometimes people make you understand why they have that policy.
tupac recorded 501 songs, but only 2 became top ten hits.
van gogh painted 2,100 paintings and only sold 1 while he was alive and it was 6 months before he died.
sabrina carpenter released 67 songs and five albums over the course of 10 years before she had her big hit "espresso."
glen powell spent 19 years trying to become an actor before "top gun: maverick" made him a star. 19 solid years.
and connor story spent 8 years waiting tables and he was ready to quit acting for good. and the day he almost got fired, he got an email and he found out that he got the lead actor role in "heated rivalry," the biggest acquired hbo show in history.
and you are giving up because you tried twice? or maybe 10 times?
look, a winner is just a loser that tried one more time and that's just it
winners lose more than losers even try.
Allow me give a not so brief history lesson so we can all understand what is going on here.
For much of European history, pale skin was a marker of status. An elite woman was supposed to have skin that had barely been under the sun because pale skin signalled she did not work outdoors.
In a world where most people spent their lives labouring under the sun to survive, avoiding the sun was evidence of wealth.
The rich could stay indoors and send the poor outside to work for them. This is why they wore gloves and wide hats when outside. It is also where the term blue blood comes from; rich families who never did physical labour and thus were rarely in the sun had skin so pale the veins underneath would show.
So to be tanned meant to do outdoor labour, and to do outdoor labout meant to be poor.
But as the industrial revolution came around and factories multiplied, the poor who had previously laboured outdoors were pulled indoors to work in factories, workshops and later offices rather than under the sun
And their skin became paler.
Now if the poor could become pale skinned simply by working indoors, then pale skin could no longer communicate wealth, so the elite abandoned the old signal and switched to a new one: tanned skin.
Because now it meant only they had the time and money to lie in the sun while everyone else worked indoors.
Pale meant rich, tanned meant poor. Then pale meant poor so the rich did a 180 and went back to tanned.
That is exactly the same thing that is happening here. Wiresless ear buds generally, and airpods specifically meant rich. Wired earphones meant poor.
Then when everyone could afford wiresless ear buds and their replica knock-offs, wireless meant poor and the 'rich' who differentiated themselves with wiresless in the past, switched back to wired.
It is not because they "got tired of charging their wireless earbuds"
Away from the history lesson, the broader explanation is that humans crave to be seen. We do not want to go through life unnoticed. This is why we do only spend money to enjoy ourselves, we spend money so that others can see us spending money.
And one of the most common, socially acceptable ways of doing so is through the things we wear. For example. We do not spend money on watches that could buy a car so we can check the time. We spend that money so others can see that we spent money.
The point of the spending is the spending witnessed.
And with that, we signal that we are high status and that signal brings us attention .
But this flex has a fundamental flaw in the sense that the moment the status signal works, those below begin to copy it until it loses its utility.
So what happens to a status marker when those below can afford it too?
Simple; those above abandon it.
In conclusion, The things we buy, wear, drive, or use are driven by 1) the desire to belong and 2) the desire to stand out.
You want to look like the people above you to feel among, but you also want to look different from the people below you to stand out.
So the rich adopt a signal
The wannabe middle class copies it
And the majority poor copy the wannabes
And once the signal becomes widespread enough, it stops doing the job it was intended to do. Then the elite abandon it and look for a new one.
Sometimes they move to something more expensive or difficult to acquire. Sometimes they move to something obscure enough that the wannabes and the poor can't even grasp it. And sometimes, as with tanning and wired earphones, they do a 180 and move in the opposite direction.
It happens with clothes, bags, earphones, restaurants, language and so on.
The rich keep moving. The middle class keeps chasing, and the poor keep copying. And the markers of status keep changing. And on and on and on it goes.
@Esq_Dalmas_J We move by grace.
After I opened, this was late in February, you have no idea how much I would go through your posts for encouragement and now here we are, forging forward.