Top 8% Own 85%

[Brain357]

Prove it. you know with actual evidence

If you went to court and said That guy cost me 1 million dollars you would have to prove it

Here come da judge here come da judge, skull pilot in da courtroom saying he is da judge.

Hey skull, prove those companies didn't conspire. Can you do that? They paid out a substantial sum of money for something. Prove it was for nothing.

Judge baby skull cries- "they are all wrong"

 

[Wilbur Right]

Judge baby skull cries- "they are all wrong"

Order in skulls courtroom. Order in da courtroom
You gonna be held in contempt of skull.
Your fine? Two femurs and a tibula. Unbroken.

 

[Andylusion]

That doesn't answer the question. You keep babbling and you don't know any facts. You haven't provided a single link to support your ridiculous claims. Sorry I'll go with economists over you idiot.

And you don't either you can't tell me how much money these whiners would have made.

WHat does a top paid software engineer make

Ranking Glassdoor's 25 Highest Paying Companies for Software Engineers

This week Glassdoor published the study, 25 Highest Paying Companies for Software Engineers 2013. Juniper Networks JNPR +3.25% leads all 25 companies tracked in the study with an average base salary of $159,990, followed by LinkedIn LNKD +3.17%, who offers an average base salary of $136,427. Yahoo YHOO +1.64%’s average base salary for software engineers is $130,312 and Google GOOG +1.61%averages $127,143. Twitter’s average base salary for software engineers is $124,883. The following infographic shows the top 25 companies and average base salaries.


Seems to me we are talking about a couple or three percent of their income spread over a span of years



AHHHHHH THE HORROR

It had no effect on the economy

Economists disagree with you. You are the king of low information.

And you can't think for yourself

You can't even tell me how much these people lost in income because of the alleged collusion

Absolutely right. We have beaten this guy over the head with facts and arguments, and he hasn't been able to answer ANYTHING. All he does is repeat himself like a mindless parrot.

Your have babbled on and whined. You don't have a single link that supports any of your stupidity. You are clowns and I just keep laughing.

And you still can't make one single counter argument to anything I've said. INCLUDING the links I have posted in support of my position.

So now, you are just going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalala I can't see your links". Right... ok child. Have nice one.

 

[Andylusion]

And you have not shown me that these people actually did lose any income

That is because you are a moron. I have shown why they lost wages through real economists. The DOJ found them guilty. I have shown the judge with all the facts increased the amount. And we all know they were paid 415 million. You can keep asking stupid questions, but they are irrelevant. You can't even offer a single link to support anything.

HOW MUCH DID THEY LOSE

If you break it down even the court only thought the lost a couple percent spread out over a number of years

The fact is that it is all conjecture if these people really lost any income and you certainly can't prove they did or how much they lost

415 million.

Show me the calculation

You can't can you?

Give a break down of exactly how much income each of those 65000 people lost in income and give me proof that they were actually denied higher paying jobs

The number was partly conjecture and partly a punitive assessment it was pulled out of the judges ass

What is your point? My point is that collusion held down their wages. Economists agree, the DOJ agrees, the judge with all the facts agrees, the 415 million agrees. When it is to then tune of 415 million for a single case that shows it is significant. Your questions continue to be pointless.

You are wrong. They are wrong.

You can't prove it. They just made up a number.

Seriously... you are trying to "prove" a salary that was never offered, for jobs that were never given, because of actions that were never taken? How do any of these Engineers even know.... that these companies WOULD have poached, if they hadn't had the agreement, and how do you know what salary WOULD have been offered, for jobs that were never even applied for?

That's your idea of proof? Yeah, this is childish. You need to grow up.

 

[Andylusion]

Prove it. you know with actual evidence

If you went to court and said That guy cost me 1 million dollars you would have to prove it

Here come da judge here come da judge, skull pilot in da courtroom saying he is da judge.

Hey skull, prove those companies didn't conspire. Can you do that? They paid out a substantial sum of money for something. Prove it was for nothing.

Judge baby skull cries- "they are all wrong"

I can't help it that you can't think outside of your spoon fed information. Both of you resorting to childish responses, doesn't surprise me one bit, given the intellectual incompetence displayed by you both.

Dear ol Wilbur doesn't even know there was no agreement to hold wages down. And you think that because the DOJ says it, it must be true, when the DOJ has laws against everything the company does. How mentally bankrupt do you have to be, to not be able to think for yourself?

Both of you are pathetic.

 

[Brain357]

That is because you are a moron. I have shown why they lost wages through real economists. The DOJ found them guilty. I have shown the judge with all the facts increased the amount. And we all know they were paid 415 million. You can keep asking stupid questions, but they are irrelevant. You can't even offer a single link to support anything.

HOW MUCH DID THEY LOSE

If you break it down even the court only thought the lost a couple percent spread out over a number of years

The fact is that it is all conjecture if these people really lost any income and you certainly can't prove they did or how much they lost

415 million.

Show me the calculation

You can't can you?

Give a break down of exactly how much income each of those 65000 people lost in income and give me proof that they were actually denied higher paying jobs

The number was partly conjecture and partly a punitive assessment it was pulled out of the judges ass

What is your point? My point is that collusion held down their wages. Economists agree, the DOJ agrees, the judge with all the facts agrees, the 415 million agrees. When it is to then tune of 415 million for a single case that shows it is significant. Your questions continue to be pointless.

You are wrong. They are wrong.

You can't prove it. They just made up a number.

Seriously... you are trying to "prove" a salary that was never offered, for jobs that were never given, because of actions that were never taken? How do any of these Engineers even know.... that these companies WOULD have poached, if they hadn't had the agreement, and how do you know what salary WOULD have been offered, for jobs that were never even applied for?

That's your idea of proof? Yeah, this is childish. You need to grow up.

You make me laugh. You just keep denying and can't post a single link why anyone should believe you. Your stupidity is quite comical.

 

[oreo]

This is really screwed up...and we Americans fight among ourselves over stupid things. All the while the elites are screwing us. When will we wake up and take action?


The Panama Papers offer damning proof of this: increasing concentrations of wealth and power that are free of any constraint (such as taxes) is not just the consequence of centralized money and state power--this inequality is the only possible output of centralized money and state power.

Here is a graphic portrayal of just how concentrated global wealth really is: the top .7% (less than 1%) own 45% of all global wealth, and the top 8% own 85%.

Of Two Minds - The Panama Papers: This Is the Consequence of Centralized Money and Power

And the top 1% pay 50% of the entire tax base of this country, the top 8% pay 85% of the entire tax base of this country. So what's your point? How do you get more out of them?

The Top 1 Percent Pays More in Taxes than the Bottom 90 Percent

Socialism 101
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html?_r=0
These Dramatic Images Sum Up the Chaos in Greece

 

[Skull Pilot]

SHOW ME EXACTLY HOW MUCH THEY LOST WITH ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Irrelevant. 415 million.

So you can't prove anything and you just won't admit it

That number was pulled out of a judge's ass you're just too ******* stupid to realize it

415 million.

Prove it. you know with actual evidence

If you went to court and said That guy cost me 1 million dollars you would have to prove it

So show me how they proved that they lost a few grand each

BUt you can't can you

There was already a court case. They provided the evidence and it got them 415 million. Look it up if you want more details.

There was a settlement you twit that means there was no trial

 

[Skull Pilot]

Prove it. you know with actual evidence

If you went to court and said That guy cost me 1 million dollars you would have to prove it

Here come da judge here come da judge, skull pilot in da courtroom saying he is da judge.

Hey skull, prove those companies didn't conspire. Can you do that? They paid out a substantial sum of money for something. Prove it was for nothing.

I never said they didn't have an agreement not to actively poach employees FYI I don't think there's anything wrong with that because any of those employees could have of their own accord applied for jobs at any of those companies

I am asking how they came up with the amount of alleged lost income. And none of you can tell me that

The original 3 billion dollars asked for was a number made up by the filing attorney who settled for 10 cents on the dollar. The judge thought that wasn't enough and assessed an additional amount.

How come none of you can show me that these people actually lost any income? This entire case was based on maybes, and might haves there is no actual proof that anyone lost any income

But since the 65000 people named in the suit accepted the offer that boils down to a few grand each and given the average salary of a top tier software engineer I can conclude that the plaintiffs agree they might have only lost a few percent of income spread out over a number of years that the non-poaching agreement was in place.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Prove it. you know with actual evidence

If you went to court and said That guy cost me 1 million dollars you would have to prove it

Here come da judge here come da judge, skull pilot in da courtroom saying he is da judge.

Hey skull, prove those companies didn't conspire. Can you do that? They paid out a substantial sum of money for something. Prove it was for nothing.

Judge baby skull cries- "they are all wrong"

You can't show me that anyone actually lost any income can you?

It was for punitive reasons and has nothing to do with any lost income

 

[Skull Pilot]

That is because you are a moron. I have shown why they lost wages through real economists. The DOJ found them guilty. I have shown the judge with all the facts increased the amount. And we all know they were paid 415 million. You can keep asking stupid questions, but they are irrelevant. You can't even offer a single link to support anything.

HOW MUCH DID THEY LOSE

If you break it down even the court only thought the lost a couple percent spread out over a number of years

The fact is that it is all conjecture if these people really lost any income and you certainly can't prove they did or how much they lost

415 million.

Show me the calculation

You can't can you?

Give a break down of exactly how much income each of those 65000 people lost in income and give me proof that they were actually denied higher paying jobs

The number was partly conjecture and partly a punitive assessment it was pulled out of the judges ass

What is your point? My point is that collusion held down their wages. Economists agree, the DOJ agrees, the judge with all the facts agrees, the 415 million agrees. When it is to then tune of 415 million for a single case that shows it is significant. Your questions continue to be pointless.

You are wrong. They are wrong.

You can't prove it. They just made up a number.

Seriously... you are trying to "prove" a salary that was never offered, for jobs that were never given, because of actions that were never taken? How do any of these Engineers even know.... that these companies WOULD have poached, if they hadn't had the agreement, and how do you know what salary WOULD have been offered, for jobs that were never even applied for?

That's your idea of proof? Yeah, this is childish. You need to grow up.

The thing is anyone of these people in the suit could have of their own accord applied and if hired accepted jobs at any of the companies named in the suit

They just think that a company has to chase them and offer them more than their current employer

 

[gipper]

This is really screwed up...and we Americans fight among ourselves over stupid things. All the while the elites are screwing us. When will we wake up and take action?


The Panama Papers offer damning proof of this: increasing concentrations of wealth and power that are free of any constraint (such as taxes) is not just the consequence of centralized money and state power--this inequality is the only possible output of centralized money and state power.

Here is a graphic portrayal of just how concentrated global wealth really is: the top .7% (less than 1%) own 45% of all global wealth, and the top 8% own 85%.

Of Two Minds - The Panama Papers: This Is the Consequence of Centralized Money and Power

And the top 1% pay 50% of the entire tax base of this country, the top 8% pay 85% of the entire tax base of this country. So what's your point? How do you get more out of them?

The Top 1 Percent Pays More in Taxes than the Bottom 90 Percent

Socialism 101
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html?_r=0
These Dramatic Images Sum Up the Chaos in Greece

Agreed, but that does not address the outrageous concentration of wealth into the hands of a very small number of people. Those people have tremendous political power and use their wealth to buy government and politicians. Many of these extremely wealthy people gained their wealth through political/government connections and political influence, not by hard work.

 

[Brain357]

Irrelevant. 415 million.

So you can't prove anything and you just won't admit it

That number was pulled out of a judge's ass you're just too ******* stupid to realize it

415 million.

Prove it. you know with actual evidence

If you went to court and said That guy cost me 1 million dollars you would have to prove it

So show me how they proved that they lost a few grand each

BUt you can't can you

There was already a court case. They provided the evidence and it got them 415 million. Look it up if you want more details.

There was a settlement you twit that means there was no trial

The judge heard all the facts and demanded the settlement be raised from 300 to over 400 million.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you can't prove anything and you just won't admit it

That number was pulled out of a judge's ass you're just too ******* stupid to realize it

415 million.

Prove it. you know with actual evidence

If you went to court and said That guy cost me 1 million dollars you would have to prove it

So show me how they proved that they lost a few grand each

BUt you can't can you

There was already a court case. They provided the evidence and it got them 415 million. Look it up if you want more details.

There was a settlement you twit that means there was no trial

The judge heard all the facts and demanded the settlement be raised from 300 to over 400 million.

There was no trial so he didn't hear anything
The lawyers settled OUT OF COURT that's what a settlement means the judge simply decided that it wasn't enough

Tell you what if there was a trial then post the transcripts they would be public record

 

[Brain357]

415 million.

Prove it. you know with actual evidence

If you went to court and said That guy cost me 1 million dollars you would have to prove it

So show me how they proved that they lost a few grand each

BUt you can't can you

There was already a court case. They provided the evidence and it got them 415 million. Look it up if you want more details.

There was a settlement you twit that means there was no trial

The judge heard all the facts and demanded the settlement be raised from 300 to over 400 million.

There was no trial so he didn't hear anything
The lawyers settled OUT OF COURT that's what a settlement means the judge simply decided that it wasn't enough

Tell you what if there was a trial then post the transcripts they would be public record

The judge wasn't going to demand it be raised for no reason. Just like the companies didn't illegally collude for no reason. Still waiting on any link to support your stupidly.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Prove it. you know with actual evidence

If you went to court and said That guy cost me 1 million dollars you would have to prove it

So show me how they proved that they lost a few grand each

BUt you can't can you

There was already a court case. They provided the evidence and it got them 415 million. Look it up if you want more details.

There was a settlement you twit that means there was no trial

The judge heard all the facts and demanded the settlement be raised from 300 to over 400 million.

There was no trial so he didn't hear anything
The lawyers settled OUT OF COURT that's what a settlement means the judge simply decided that it wasn't enough

Tell you what if there was a trial then post the transcripts they would be public record

The judge wasn't going to demand it be raised for no reason. Just like the companies didn't illegally collude for no reason. Still waiting on any link to support your stupidly.

The reason was he thought it wasn't enough and that's all the reason he needs

 

[Brain357]

415 million.

Prove it. you know with actual evidence

If you went to court and said That guy cost me 1 million dollars you would have to prove it

So show me how they proved that they lost a few grand each

BUt you can't can you

There was already a court case. They provided the evidence and it got them 415 million. Look it up if you want more details.

There was a settlement you twit that means there was no trial

The judge heard all the facts and demanded the settlement be raised from 300 to over 400 million.

There was no trial so he didn't hear anything
The lawyers settled OUT OF COURT that's what a settlement means the judge simply decided that it wasn't enough

Tell you what if there was a trial then post the transcripts they would be public record

Apple has quite the history of hurting consumers and workers.
Apple agrees to pay $450 million to settle ebook price fixing lawsuit

 

[Brain357]

There was already a court case. They provided the evidence and it got them 415 million. Look it up if you want more details.

There was a settlement you twit that means there was no trial

The judge heard all the facts and demanded the settlement be raised from 300 to over 400 million.

There was no trial so he didn't hear anything
The lawyers settled OUT OF COURT that's what a settlement means the judge simply decided that it wasn't enough

Tell you what if there was a trial then post the transcripts they would be public record

The judge wasn't going to demand it be raised for no reason. Just like the companies didn't illegally collude for no reason. Still waiting on any link to support your stupidly.

The reason was he thought it wasn't enough and that's all the reason he needs

That is exactly what you are doing since you have no links. So obviously since you think you are right, she must have been too. Ha

 

[Skull Pilot]

There was a settlement you twit that means there was no trial

The judge heard all the facts and demanded the settlement be raised from 300 to over 400 million.

There was no trial so he didn't hear anything
The lawyers settled OUT OF COURT that's what a settlement means the judge simply decided that it wasn't enough

Tell you what if there was a trial then post the transcripts they would be public record

The judge wasn't going to demand it be raised for no reason. Just like the companies didn't illegally collude for no reason. Still waiting on any link to support your stupidly.

The reason was he thought it wasn't enough and that's all the reason he needs

That is exactly what you are doing since you have no links. So obviously since you think you are right, she must have been too. Ha

I never said they lost any income you did

So you prove how much income they lost if you can

 

[Brain357]

The judge heard all the facts and demanded the settlement be raised from 300 to over 400 million.

There was no trial so he didn't hear anything
The lawyers settled OUT OF COURT that's what a settlement means the judge simply decided that it wasn't enough

Tell you what if there was a trial then post the transcripts they would be public record

The judge wasn't going to demand it be raised for no reason. Just like the companies didn't illegally collude for no reason. Still waiting on any link to support your stupidly.

The reason was he thought it wasn't enough and that's all the reason he needs

That is exactly what you are doing since you have no links. So obviously since you think you are right, she must have been too. Ha

I never said they lost any income you did

So you prove how much income they lost if you can

415 million.