This is obviously a legitimate criticism of the paper, and I will revise with this in mind, but I feel compelled to briefly respond. I don't believe that the story I tell is as disconnected from "the real world" as you suggest. I am discussing the initial choice that a law student has in choosing their first job - while the implication that this decision is permanently-binding may be derived from the writing if the reader chooses, it is nowhere explicitly suggested. Your illustrations of the dynamism of career paths in the present day are, I'm sure, true.

However, I still believe that a lawyer's initial choice of work will prove to be significant. Will a law student who starts as a 160K associate be comfortable taking a 60K job later down the road? Veblen would say no. This does not refute your contentions; far from it. But I think that it does ascribe more importance to where a lawyer starts out, especially if that individual is interested in the nebulous thing I have called "change".