…And if you know what that means, great, because there’re plenty of caveats I have to lay out for everyone else.
Steven Harper inspires me to check up on how things are going with the BLS’s proposed rule-change for estimating occupational replacement rates; there was an update on January 2nd. Apparently, the Employment Projections program released a spreadsheet with experimental 2012-2022 replacement and separations data alongside the numbers from the current methodology. I don’t think it was there before, but the BLS says it was. If so I wish I’d noticed it earlier as it’s quite interesting.
For one, my hunch in my American Lawyer article was correct: Under the new methodology between 2012 and 2022, 339,800 out of 759,800 lawyers would be replaced, and the growth rate, which is what we should be caring about because it’s not zero sum, doesn’t get changed. I like getting the numbers right. (Okay, I was off by a thousand.)
For another, the BLS goes further than I expected by separating the total occupational replacement rate into “labor force exits” and “occupational transfers,” which mean as they sound. Labor force exits are certainly going to include most retirements but also people exiting for parental leave and other, less common personal reasons. The labor force exit rate for lawyers is 17.1 percent, which compares strikingly well with the current methodology’s 16 percent replacement rate.
As for occupational transfers, as this post’s title states, it’s 25.5 percent. That’s the concept I’ve been most concerned about all along. These are lawyers who are leaving the profession for different types of jobs. To be clear, some of these transfers are preferable and some not. It includes lawyers who become judges with lawyers who become retail sales clerks. The interesting comparison—and the best I can give you—is with other occupations that require doctoral or professional degrees, sorted by size and occupational transfer rate.
| OCCUPATION | SOC CODE | CURRENT METHOD | NEW METHOD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| REPLACEMENT RATE, 2012-22 | OCCUPATIONAL TRANSFER RATE, 2012-22 | LABOR FORCE EXIT RATE, 2012-22 | OCCUPATIONAL SEPARATION RATE, 2012-22 | ||
| Animal scientists | 19-1011 | 33.3% | 54.3% | 22.2% | 76.4% |
| Biochemists and biophysicists | 19-1021 | 28.5% | 54.1% | 18.0% | 72.1% |
| Medical scientists, except epidemiologists | 19-1042 | 21.1% | 51.3% | 14.5% | 65.9% |
| Computer and information research scientists | 15-1111 | 15.7% | 44.9% | 11.2% | 56.1% |
| Clinical, counseling, and school psychologists | 19-3031 | 27.2% | 42.1% | 24.1% | 66.3% |
| Physicists | 19-2012 | 24.5% | 38.8% | 19.1% | 57.9% |
| Astronomers | 19-2011 | 24.5% | 38.8% | 19.1% | 57.9% |
| Judicial law clerks | 23-1012 | 16.2% | 35.4% | 27.5% | 62.9% |
| Postsecondary teachers, all other | 25-1199 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Health specialties teachers, postsecondary | 25-1071 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Business teachers, postsecondary | 25-1011 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| English language and literature teachers, postsecondary | 25-1123 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Education teachers, postsecondary | 25-1081 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Biological science teachers, postsecondary | 25-1042 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Mathematical science teachers, postsecondary | 25-1022 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Psychology teachers, postsecondary | 25-1066 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Engineering teachers, postsecondary | 25-1032 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Computer science teachers, postsecondary | 25-1021 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Communications teachers, postsecondary | 25-1122 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Foreign language and literature teachers, postsecondary | 25-1124 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Philosophy and religion teachers, postsecondary | 25-1126 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| History teachers, postsecondary | 25-1125 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Chemistry teachers, postsecondary | 25-1052 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Recreation and fitness studies teachers, postsecondary | 25-1193 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Political science teachers, postsecondary | 25-1065 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Sociology teachers, postsecondary | 25-1067 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Law teachers, postsecondary | 25-1112 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Physics teachers, postsecondary | 25-1054 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Economics teachers, postsecondary | 25-1063 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Criminal justice and law enforcement teachers, postsecondary | 25-1111 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Atmospheric, earth, marine, and space sciences teachers, postsecondary | 25-1051 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Agricultural sciences teachers, postsecondary | 25-1041 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Area, ethnic, and cultural studies teachers, postsecondary | 25-1062 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Social sciences teachers, postsecondary, all other | 25-1069 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Social work teachers, postsecondary | 25-1113 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Architecture teachers, postsecondary | 25-1031 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Anthropology and archeology teachers, postsecondary | 25-1061 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Environmental science teachers, postsecondary | 25-1053 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Geography teachers, postsecondary | 25-1064 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Library science teachers, postsecondary | 25-1082 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Forestry and conservation science teachers, postsecondary | 25-1043 | 15.0% | 34.1% | 32.9% | 67.0% |
| Lawyers | 23-1011 | 16.0% | 25.5% | 17.1% | 42.6% |
| Judges, magistrate judges, and magistrates | 23-1023 | 16.0% | 25.5% | 17.1% | 42.6% |
| Administrative law judges, adjudicators, and hearing officers | 23-1021 | 16.0% | 25.5% | 17.1% | 42.6% |
| Physical therapists | 29-1123 | 24.6% | 23.6% | 15.2% | 38.8% |
| Pharmacists | 29-1051 | 23.9% | 20.5% | 16.8% | 37.4% |
| Audiologists | 29-1181 | 20.7% | 20.0% | 14.5% | 34.5% |
| Veterinarians | 29-1131 | 32.1% | 16.6% | 14.5% | 31.1% |
| Physicians and surgeons, all other | 29-1069 | 25.0% | 14.4% | 14.6% | 29.0% |
| Family and general practitioners | 29-1062 | 25.0% | 14.4% | 14.6% | 29.0% |
| Internists, general | 29-1063 | 25.0% | 14.4% | 14.6% | 29.0% |
| Surgeons | 29-1067 | 25.0% | 14.4% | 14.6% | 29.0% |
| Anesthesiologists | 29-1061 | 25.0% | 14.4% | 14.6% | 29.0% |
| Pediatricians, general | 29-1065 | 25.0% | 14.4% | 14.6% | 29.0% |
| Psychiatrists | 29-1066 | 25.0% | 14.4% | 14.6% | 29.0% |
| Obstetricians and gynecologists | 29-1064 | 25.0% | 14.4% | 14.6% | 29.0% |
| Optometrists | 29-1041 | 29.0% | 14.0% | 19.6% | 33.6% |
| Chiropractors | 29-1011 | 19.6% | 13.6% | 13.1% | 26.8% |
| Dentists, general | 29-1021 | 24.4% | 12.7% | 15.6% | 28.3% |
| Orthodontists | 29-1023 | 24.4% | 12.7% | 15.6% | 28.3% |
| Oral and maxillofacial surgeons | 29-1022 | 24.4% | 12.7% | 15.6% | 28.3% |
| Dentists, all other specialists | 29-1029 | 24.4% | 12.7% | 15.6% | 28.3% |
| Prosthodontists | 29-1024 | 24.4% | 12.7% | 15.6% | 28.3% |
| Podiatrists | 29-1081 | 20.7% | 12.1% | 11.1% | 23.3% |
I didn’t include it, but some of the occupations at the top with high turnover are quite tiny. There are only 2,700 animal scientists, for example, so my guess is there are still problems with the data. You’ll also note that many of the stats tend to clump together by occupation types, e.g. the 33 postsecondary instructor classes, which all have the same replacement rates, for both the new and old methodologies.
But the real money is in comparisons among the professional occupations, which are generally doctors, dentists, and lawyers. Lawyers’ occupational transfer rate is double doctors’ and dentists’. The medical occupations’ replacement rates under the current methodology are only a few percentage points lower than the total occupational separation rate under the new one, but the same can’t be said for attorneys’.
I’m not sure how reliable these experimental data are, but they do tend to show that there’s more turnover for lawyers than the other professions they’re most often compared to. (Ironically there’s even more turnover for postsecondary law instructors.) And I’m not even getting into job quality. I wouldn’t say this is especially strong evidence of a high turnover rate for lawyers, but it’s another piece that fits in that puzzle.
The BLS (still) says it’ll give us another update early this year, but I hope to write on other topics.
The Last Gen X American 
Am I reading the chart wrong or is it saying that only 35.4% of Judicial Law Clerks are expected to transfer out of being a clerk through 2022, but 27.5% of that group will exit the labor force entirely in that same time period? If I’m reading right, those numbers seem very off to me. The former seems quite low, as a large proportion of clerkships are temporary positions designed to transition recent law grads into practice as a lawyer (and are effective at doing so). The latter seems high, for similar reasons with the addition that most clerks are pretty young, so retirement right out of clerkship seems like something less than a quarter of them would do.
Hi Former Editor,
You are reading the chart right. I noticed judicial clerkships’ low turnover rate too but didn’t have the heart to point it out. It does raise questions about the new methodology’s precision—not that the old one is really relevant for this occupation.
Big change from the 1980s when the overall separation rate for lawyers was just over 6%, with 2% occupational transfers:
Click to access art1full.pdf
Nice catch, Guest! (Like, remind me not to mess with you.)
Perhaps the BLS is using a different methodology with the proposed projections.
I have serious issues with the new BLS methodology. It looks suspiciously like cover for professional schools across the board. The replacement rate for pharmacists rises from 10900 to around 15000, how convenient, since that is around the number of new pharmacists that will becoming out by 2016 or so, even though several papers by academics in health care state that the current demand for pharmacists is at most 12000 a year and the current rise in graduates will lead to 20-30% unemployment (not as bad as for lawyers, but still).
For Veterinarians, the same, the increase will be used to justify the growing number of graduates, despite the dismal demand.
For physicians, the increase is the magic number that allows justification for the expansion of Osteopathic Medical Schools, with the prerequisite demand for increasing residency slots. Given the greater use of mid level health care professionals, and automation for diagnosis in particular and apps for health maintenance, one must literally deny reality to believe that the old methodology of around 29700 physicians a year in demand is insanely optimistic, forget the new methodology.
As for as I am concerned, I want to know who is paying off the BLS. Seriously, this is the only rational explanation I can come up with to account for the new figures.
Well, to defend the BLS a tad, it is predicting full employment by 2022. I think that’s a fantasy too, but it’s a fair assumption if they’re making it consistently.
Otherwise, Alex, I appreciate your comments because you’re the only person I know of who is interested and knowledgeable about the medical professions.
Matt, do you know where one can send the BLS comments about the new methodology, if possible? I would like yo add my comment against the proposed changes if possible.
Thank You for running this blog and your articles.
Alex
Alex,
The request for comments is in the federal register.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/05/16/2014-11286/comment-request
-ML