Top 8% Own 85%

[Andylusion]

The problem is that US companies put money into their union workers instead of their product. This was explained to me by my mechanic when I last owned an American car.

So after I got rid of that piece of junk, I went to Toyota and never been happier. Never been towed, never been late for work, never been stranded anywhere, because Toyota put their money into quality than labor. That's why Toyota can give you a 100,000 mile 7 year warranty on their products and American companies can't.

If you go to an American dealership, and compare a 50,000 mile used car compared to the price of a new one, you'll find a huge gap. Do the same at Toyota, and you'll see how much value their used cars have kept.

The engineers aren't union.

That's irrelevant. Engineers are paid for out of profits. Profits is produced by the price minus cost of production. When you drive up labor costs, you have to lower the cost somewhere else, in order to have a profit.

The people designing the cars that break are irrelevant? Really?

Yes, they are irrelevant.

You not getting this.

You can't put into a car, parts that are so expensive that the car no longer makes a profit. If the price of labor is higher.... the cost of the parts MUST be lower. Engineers can't make a part that costs 3¢ and lasts 200 years. If they engineer the part to last longer, is always costs more. But a Chevy Metro, doesn't magically become worth $30,000, because they have an alternator that will last 100 years.

So the cost of the car doesn't really change. A $20,000 sedan, will not bring a higher price, because they put in a better alternator.

Thus, as the price of labor costs go up.... because of Unions.... the cost of parts, has to go down. They have to cut cost, in order to make a profit. So they put into the car, the crappy alternator, that hopefully lasts until it's out of warranty.

The issues were all design and engineering based. so far you have backed up your claim with no proof. What parts are you talking about? How is it Japan has union workers in Japan without the issues you claim?

Couple of things.

Engineers at car companies are presented with requirements they have to work within. When the company tells the engineers part X has to be cheaper, then engineers have no choice but to cut the price of the part, by designing it more cheaply.

I worked at a dealership back in the early 2000s. In fact I was working there on 9/11. One of the things I learned there, was that older Cadillac alternators were better, than the newer alternators. That's why I picked that part as an example. The way I found out about it, was I saw a mechanic pull in his own Caddy, and replace the stock alternator, with an older one. Both alternators were exactly the same, except the new one, was smaller in size, and much lighter. The small size meant it dissipated heat less, and would wear out faster.

I came to find out all the guys there did that to their own cars. Ditched the new alternator (sold it usually), and replaced them with bigger older models that lasted forever.

Why did they have a perfectly good alternator that would last longer than the car, and engineer a new one that didn't last? Answer.... Cost.

Now why would the company require the engineers make parts that were cheaper? Union labor driving up the cost of labor, means the parts going into the car have to be cheaper.

As for Japan unions, Japan has been in an economic stagnation for decades. It is entirely likely that Unions are playing a major part in that.

But there is actually a bigger reason. Unions are not magically all the same. A union in the US, is not the same as a Union in some other country. Sometimes they are, but that isn't a given.

For example, Unions in Germany are extremely pro-corporate. Corporations are not vilified around the world, like they are here in the US. France, Unions attack corporations. Which is why companies are pulling out of France one by one. But in Germany, and Japan, corporations are seen as benefits to the country, and to the public, and to the workers.

So one reason Japanese Unions have not driven their companies into bankruptcy, is because they actually "like" their companies, and "like" their jobs, and are happy to have a good job.

In the US, we had the Unions meet with Hostess executives, and the Execs said openly, if you strike, we will simply declare bankruptcy and close the company.. The Union voted to destroy the company. That would never happen in Japan.

 

[Brain357]

The engineers aren't union.

That's irrelevant. Engineers are paid for out of profits. Profits is produced by the price minus cost of production. When you drive up labor costs, you have to lower the cost somewhere else, in order to have a profit.

The people designing the cars that break are irrelevant? Really?

Yes, they are irrelevant.

You not getting this.

You can't put into a car, parts that are so expensive that the car no longer makes a profit. If the price of labor is higher.... the cost of the parts MUST be lower. Engineers can't make a part that costs 3¢ and lasts 200 years. If they engineer the part to last longer, is always costs more. But a Chevy Metro, doesn't magically become worth $30,000, because they have an alternator that will last 100 years.

So the cost of the car doesn't really change. A $20,000 sedan, will not bring a higher price, because they put in a better alternator.

Thus, as the price of labor costs go up.... because of Unions.... the cost of parts, has to go down. They have to cut cost, in order to make a profit. So they put into the car, the crappy alternator, that hopefully lasts until it's out of warranty.

The issues were all design and engineering based. so far you have backed up your claim with no proof. What parts are you talking about? How is it Japan has union workers in Japan without the issues you claim?

Couple of things.

Engineers at car companies are presented with requirements they have to work within. When the company tells the engineers part X has to be cheaper, then engineers have no choice but to cut the price of the part, by designing it more cheaply.

I worked at a dealership back in the early 2000s. In fact I was working there on 9/11. One of the things I learned there, was that older Cadillac alternators were better, than the newer alternators. That's why I picked that part as an example. The way I found out about it, was I saw a mechanic pull in his own Caddy, and replace the stock alternator, with an older one. Both alternators were exactly the same, except the new one, was smaller in size, and much lighter. The small size meant it dissipated heat less, and would wear out faster.

I came to find out all the guys there did that to their own cars. Ditched the new alternator (sold it usually), and replaced them with bigger older models that lasted forever.

Why did they have a perfectly good alternator that would last longer than the car, and engineer a new one that didn't last? Answer.... Cost.

Now why would the company require the engineers make parts that were cheaper? Union labor driving up the cost of labor, means the parts going into the car have to be cheaper.

As for Japan unions, Japan has been in an economic stagnation for decades. It is entirely likely that Unions are playing a major part in that.

But there is actually a bigger reason. Unions are not magically all the same. A union in the US, is not the same as a Union in some other country. Sometimes they are, but that isn't a given.

For example, Unions in Germany are extremely pro-corporate. Corporations are not vilified around the world, like they are here in the US. France, Unions attack corporations. Which is why companies are pulling out of France one by one. But in Germany, and Japan, corporations are seen as benefits to the country, and to the public, and to the workers.

So one reason Japanese Unions have not driven their companies into bankruptcy, is because they actually "like" their companies, and "like" their jobs, and are happy to have a good job.

In the US, we had the Unions meet with Hostess executives, and the Execs said openly, if you strike, we will simply declare bankruptcy and close the company.. The Union voted to destroy the company. That would never happen in Japan.

Alternators are a sourced part, not made by GM. And most companies are sourcing them from the same places. You have proof that alternators in GM vehicles don't last as long as those in Hondas?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The companies on the other end of the poaching, of course, lose knowledge and skills when their employees leave. Moreover, replacing employees creates labor competition and drives wages higher, and the fear of losing employees forces a firm to plan ahead for something that may or may not happen. So some companies have responded with aggressive, or even illegal, antipoaching strategies. In April 2015, a judge approved a $415 million settlement between several technology companies—including Apple and Google—and the approximately 64,000 tech employees they conspired not to hire from each other.

The suit assumes that 4 companies make up the ENTIRE market in IT

Sorry but that's not true those people had thousands of other companies to choose from

The only way you would be right is if every single IT company entered into non compete deals and that didn't happen and never will happen

Like it states, poaching drives up wages. They colluded against poaching. When it is many of the largest companies that holds down wages. You are dismissed moron.

I don't see companies poaching low-wage workers. Poaching usually happens in high-end jobs, where the people are already paid really good money. I don't see McDonald, poaching Chic-fil-a cashiers.

The fact poaching exists suggests that they are doing it, regardless of these "colluding". Not seeing you have much of a point here.

You seem lost. Skull was claiming poaching doesn't increase wages. It obviously does. And these companies were caught illegally colluding to not poach. They were colluding to hold wages down. Not good capitalism, crony capitalism.

You are ignoring the fact that nothing was proven in this case since there was no trial
It was merely alleged that these people had their wages suppressed that is all

There was a settlement yes but you can not assume that because there was a settlement that the defendants would have been found guilty. The settlement was a business decision because the cost of a trial would have far exceeded the settlement no matter the outcome

FYI the 65000 plaintiffs in the class action suit are going to get a few grand each And I have to wonder why they accepted the settlement if they were so egregiously wronged they should have forced a trial

That's it if they had put their efforts into finding better jobs I bet they'd be making a lot more

The only people who won anything here are the lawyers who collected a third of the settlement money

And let me ask you this. If you were a big IT co and were checking out a potential hire would you want to hire anyone who sued their former employer?

These whiners hurt themselves more than they did any of the companies they sued

 

[Skull Pilot]

The companies on the other end of the poaching, of course, lose knowledge and skills when their employees leave. Moreover, replacing employees creates labor competition and drives wages higher, and the fear of losing employees forces a firm to plan ahead for something that may or may not happen. So some companies have responded with aggressive, or even illegal, antipoaching strategies. In April 2015, a judge approved a $415 million settlement between several technology companies—including Apple and Google—and the approximately 64,000 tech employees they conspired not to hire from each other.

The suit assumes that 4 companies make up the ENTIRE market in IT

Sorry but that's not true those people had thousands of other companies to choose from

The only way you would be right is if every single IT company entered into non compete deals and that didn't happen and never will happen

Like it states, poaching drives up wages. They colluded against poaching. When it is many of the largest companies that holds down wages. You are dismissed moron.

I don't see companies poaching low-wage workers. Poaching usually happens in high-end jobs, where the people are already paid really good money. I don't see McDonald, poaching Chic-fil-a cashiers.

The fact poaching exists suggests that they are doing it, regardless of these "colluding". Not seeing you have much of a point here.

You seem lost. Skull was claiming poaching doesn't increase wages. It obviously does. And these companies were caught illegally colluding to not poach. They were colluding to hold wages down. Not good capitalism, crony capitalism.

You haven't proven that but regardless why is any company required to actively pursue the employees of another company and why can they not have policies on recruiting that prohibit it?

 

[Brain357]

The companies on the other end of the poaching, of course, lose knowledge and skills when their employees leave. Moreover, replacing employees creates labor competition and drives wages higher, and the fear of losing employees forces a firm to plan ahead for something that may or may not happen. So some companies have responded with aggressive, or even illegal, antipoaching strategies. In April 2015, a judge approved a $415 million settlement between several technology companies—including Apple and Google—and the approximately 64,000 tech employees they conspired not to hire from each other.

The suit assumes that 4 companies make up the ENTIRE market in IT

Sorry but that's not true those people had thousands of other companies to choose from

The only way you would be right is if every single IT company entered into non compete deals and that didn't happen and never will happen

Like it states, poaching drives up wages. They colluded against poaching. When it is many of the largest companies that holds down wages. You are dismissed moron.

I don't see companies poaching low-wage workers. Poaching usually happens in high-end jobs, where the people are already paid really good money. I don't see McDonald, poaching Chic-fil-a cashiers.

The fact poaching exists suggests that they are doing it, regardless of these "colluding". Not seeing you have much of a point here.

You seem lost. Skull was claiming poaching doesn't increase wages. It obviously does. And these companies were caught illegally colluding to not poach. They were colluding to hold wages down. Not good capitalism, crony capitalism.

You are ignoring the fact that nothing was proven in this case since there was no trial
It was merely alleged that these people had their wages suppressed that is all

There was a settlement yes but you can not assume that because there was a settlement that the defendants would have been found guilty. The settlement was a business decision because the cost of a trial would have far exceeded the settlement no matter the outcome

FYI the 65000 plaintiffs in the class action suit are going to get a few grand each And I have to wonder why they accepted the settlement if they were so egregiously wronged they should have forced a trial

That's it if they had put their efforts into finding better jobs I bet they'd be making a lot more

The only people who won anything here are the lawyers who collected a third of the settlement money

And let me ask you this. If you were a big IT co and were checking out a potential hire would you want to hire anyone who sued their former employer?

These whiners hurt themselves more than they did any of the companies they sued

Prove the cost of going to court would have exceeded hundreds of millions. These companies already have lawyers on the payroll. Not exactly good press they got either.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The suit assumes that 4 companies make up the ENTIRE market in IT

Sorry but that's not true those people had thousands of other companies to choose from

The only way you would be right is if every single IT company entered into non compete deals and that didn't happen and never will happen

Like it states, poaching drives up wages. They colluded against poaching. When it is many of the largest companies that holds down wages. You are dismissed moron.

I don't see companies poaching low-wage workers. Poaching usually happens in high-end jobs, where the people are already paid really good money. I don't see McDonald, poaching Chic-fil-a cashiers.

The fact poaching exists suggests that they are doing it, regardless of these "colluding". Not seeing you have much of a point here.

You seem lost. Skull was claiming poaching doesn't increase wages. It obviously does. And these companies were caught illegally colluding to not poach. They were colluding to hold wages down. Not good capitalism, crony capitalism.

You are ignoring the fact that nothing was proven in this case since there was no trial
It was merely alleged that these people had their wages suppressed that is all

There was a settlement yes but you can not assume that because there was a settlement that the defendants would have been found guilty. The settlement was a business decision because the cost of a trial would have far exceeded the settlement no matter the outcome

FYI the 65000 plaintiffs in the class action suit are going to get a few grand each And I have to wonder why they accepted the settlement if they were so egregiously wronged they should have forced a trial

That's it if they had put their efforts into finding better jobs I bet they'd be making a lot more

The only people who won anything here are the lawyers who collected a third of the settlement money

And let me ask you this. If you were a big IT co and were checking out a potential hire would you want to hire anyone who sued their former employer?

These whiners hurt themselves more than they did any of the companies they sued

Prove the cost of going to court would have exceeded hundreds of millions. These companies already have lawyers on the payroll. Not exactly good press they got either.

The plaintiffs lawyers are the ones who won big

The people suing settled for a couple grand each that's nothing in the scheme of things but regardless of that why would they have settled at all?
They should have forced a trial and forced those evil companies to pay for it all but instead they settle for a couple grand each. Shit they could have made more driving for Uber part time

Now would yo hire anyone if you found out they sued their former employer?

 

[Brain357]

And the DOJ found them guilty.
Justice Department Requires Six High Tech Companies to Stop Entering into Anticompetitive Employee Solicitation Agreements | OPA | Department of Justice

 

[Brain357]

Like it states, poaching drives up wages. They colluded against poaching. When it is many of the largest companies that holds down wages. You are dismissed moron.

I don't see companies poaching low-wage workers. Poaching usually happens in high-end jobs, where the people are already paid really good money. I don't see McDonald, poaching Chic-fil-a cashiers.

The fact poaching exists suggests that they are doing it, regardless of these "colluding". Not seeing you have much of a point here.

You seem lost. Skull was claiming poaching doesn't increase wages. It obviously does. And these companies were caught illegally colluding to not poach. They were colluding to hold wages down. Not good capitalism, crony capitalism.

You are ignoring the fact that nothing was proven in this case since there was no trial
It was merely alleged that these people had their wages suppressed that is all

There was a settlement yes but you can not assume that because there was a settlement that the defendants would have been found guilty. The settlement was a business decision because the cost of a trial would have far exceeded the settlement no matter the outcome

FYI the 65000 plaintiffs in the class action suit are going to get a few grand each And I have to wonder why they accepted the settlement if they were so egregiously wronged they should have forced a trial

That's it if they had put their efforts into finding better jobs I bet they'd be making a lot more

The only people who won anything here are the lawyers who collected a third of the settlement money

And let me ask you this. If you were a big IT co and were checking out a potential hire would you want to hire anyone who sued their former employer?

These whiners hurt themselves more than they did any of the companies they sued

Prove the cost of going to court would have exceeded hundreds of millions. These companies already have lawyers on the payroll. Not exactly good press they got either.

The plaintiffs lawyers are the ones who won big

The people suing settled for a couple grand each that's nothing in the scheme of things but regardless of that why would they have settled at all?
They should have forced a trial and forced those evil companies to pay for it all but instead they settle for a couple grand each. Shit they could have made more driving for Uber part time

Now would yo hire anyone if you found out they sued their former employer?

That does nothing to prove your ridiculous claim. Try again.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And the DOJ found them guilty.
Justice Department Requires Six High Tech Companies to Stop Entering into Anticompetitive Employee Solicitation Agreements | OPA | Department of Justice

If there was no trial there is no guilt

This is just the government overstepping their bounds again

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't see companies poaching low-wage workers. Poaching usually happens in high-end jobs, where the people are already paid really good money. I don't see McDonald, poaching Chic-fil-a cashiers.

The fact poaching exists suggests that they are doing it, regardless of these "colluding". Not seeing you have much of a point here.

You seem lost. Skull was claiming poaching doesn't increase wages. It obviously does. And these companies were caught illegally colluding to not poach. They were colluding to hold wages down. Not good capitalism, crony capitalism.

You are ignoring the fact that nothing was proven in this case since there was no trial
It was merely alleged that these people had their wages suppressed that is all

There was a settlement yes but you can not assume that because there was a settlement that the defendants would have been found guilty. The settlement was a business decision because the cost of a trial would have far exceeded the settlement no matter the outcome

FYI the 65000 plaintiffs in the class action suit are going to get a few grand each And I have to wonder why they accepted the settlement if they were so egregiously wronged they should have forced a trial

That's it if they had put their efforts into finding better jobs I bet they'd be making a lot more

The only people who won anything here are the lawyers who collected a third of the settlement money

And let me ask you this. If you were a big IT co and were checking out a potential hire would you want to hire anyone who sued their former employer?

These whiners hurt themselves more than they did any of the companies they sued

Prove the cost of going to court would have exceeded hundreds of millions. These companies already have lawyers on the payroll. Not exactly good press they got either.

The plaintiffs lawyers are the ones who won big

The people suing settled for a couple grand each that's nothing in the scheme of things but regardless of that why would they have settled at all?
They should have forced a trial and forced those evil companies to pay for it all but instead they settle for a couple grand each. Shit they could have made more driving for Uber part time

Now would yo hire anyone if you found out they sued their former employer?

That does nothing to prove your ridiculous claim. Try again.

If you were sooooooooooo hurt by an employer would you settle for 2 grand?

This stinks even more of bullshit once you find out that these whiners only got a couple grand each

 

[rdean]

Top 8% Own 85%

Republicans feel that's the way it should be.

 

[Brain357]

You seem lost. Skull was claiming poaching doesn't increase wages. It obviously does. And these companies were caught illegally colluding to not poach. They were colluding to hold wages down. Not good capitalism, crony capitalism.

You are ignoring the fact that nothing was proven in this case since there was no trial
It was merely alleged that these people had their wages suppressed that is all

There was a settlement yes but you can not assume that because there was a settlement that the defendants would have been found guilty. The settlement was a business decision because the cost of a trial would have far exceeded the settlement no matter the outcome

FYI the 65000 plaintiffs in the class action suit are going to get a few grand each And I have to wonder why they accepted the settlement if they were so egregiously wronged they should have forced a trial

That's it if they had put their efforts into finding better jobs I bet they'd be making a lot more

The only people who won anything here are the lawyers who collected a third of the settlement money

And let me ask you this. If you were a big IT co and were checking out a potential hire would you want to hire anyone who sued their former employer?

These whiners hurt themselves more than they did any of the companies they sued

Prove the cost of going to court would have exceeded hundreds of millions. These companies already have lawyers on the payroll. Not exactly good press they got either.

The plaintiffs lawyers are the ones who won big

The people suing settled for a couple grand each that's nothing in the scheme of things but regardless of that why would they have settled at all?
They should have forced a trial and forced those evil companies to pay for it all but instead they settle for a couple grand each. Shit they could have made more driving for Uber part time

Now would yo hire anyone if you found out they sued their former employer?

That does nothing to prove your ridiculous claim. Try again.

If you were sooooooooooo hurt by an employer would you settle for 2 grand?

This stinks even more of bullshit once you find out that these whiners only got a couple grand each

That does nothing to prove your claim. Try again.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are ignoring the fact that nothing was proven in this case since there was no trial
It was merely alleged that these people had their wages suppressed that is all

There was a settlement yes but you can not assume that because there was a settlement that the defendants would have been found guilty. The settlement was a business decision because the cost of a trial would have far exceeded the settlement no matter the outcome

FYI the 65000 plaintiffs in the class action suit are going to get a few grand each And I have to wonder why they accepted the settlement if they were so egregiously wronged they should have forced a trial

That's it if they had put their efforts into finding better jobs I bet they'd be making a lot more

The only people who won anything here are the lawyers who collected a third of the settlement money

And let me ask you this. If you were a big IT co and were checking out a potential hire would you want to hire anyone who sued their former employer?

These whiners hurt themselves more than they did any of the companies they sued

Prove the cost of going to court would have exceeded hundreds of millions. These companies already have lawyers on the payroll. Not exactly good press they got either.

The plaintiffs lawyers are the ones who won big

The people suing settled for a couple grand each that's nothing in the scheme of things but regardless of that why would they have settled at all?
They should have forced a trial and forced those evil companies to pay for it all but instead they settle for a couple grand each. Shit they could have made more driving for Uber part time

Now would yo hire anyone if you found out they sued their former employer?

That does nothing to prove your ridiculous claim. Try again.

If you were sooooooooooo hurt by an employer would you settle for 2 grand?

This stinks even more of bullshit once you find out that these whiners only got a couple grand each

That does nothing to prove your claim. Try again.

Hey you have to prove it actually did suppress wages
I don't know how you can since there was no trial and no findings

 

[Brain357]

Prove the cost of going to court would have exceeded hundreds of millions. These companies already have lawyers on the payroll. Not exactly good press they got either.

The plaintiffs lawyers are the ones who won big

The people suing settled for a couple grand each that's nothing in the scheme of things but regardless of that why would they have settled at all?
They should have forced a trial and forced those evil companies to pay for it all but instead they settle for a couple grand each. Shit they could have made more driving for Uber part time

Now would yo hire anyone if you found out they sued their former employer?

That does nothing to prove your ridiculous claim. Try again.

If you were sooooooooooo hurt by an employer would you settle for 2 grand?

This stinks even more of bullshit once you find out that these whiners only got a couple grand each

That does nothing to prove your claim. Try again.

Hey you have to prove it actually did suppress wages
I don't know how you can since there was no trial and no findings

Hey your whole defense of why they settled depends on your ridiculous claim it would have been more expensive to go to court. Since they all have lawyers on payroll let's hear why it was cheaper to settle.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The plaintiffs lawyers are the ones who won big

The people suing settled for a couple grand each that's nothing in the scheme of things but regardless of that why would they have settled at all?
They should have forced a trial and forced those evil companies to pay for it all but instead they settle for a couple grand each. Shit they could have made more driving for Uber part time

Now would yo hire anyone if you found out they sued their former employer?

That does nothing to prove your ridiculous claim. Try again.

If you were sooooooooooo hurt by an employer would you settle for 2 grand?

This stinks even more of bullshit once you find out that these whiners only got a couple grand each

That does nothing to prove your claim. Try again.

Hey you have to prove it actually did suppress wages
I don't know how you can since there was no trial and no findings

Hey your whole defense of why they settled depends on your ridiculous claim it would have been more expensive to go to court. Since they all have lawyers on payroll let's hear why it was cheaper to settle.

You don't know how law suits work do you?

The plaintiffs ( the people suing) do not pay their lawyers their lawyers keep one third of the settlement

So the question again is why did they settle for a paltry couple grand each?

 

[Brain357]

That does nothing to prove your ridiculous claim. Try again.

If you were sooooooooooo hurt by an employer would you settle for 2 grand?

This stinks even more of bullshit once you find out that these whiners only got a couple grand each

That does nothing to prove your claim. Try again.

Hey you have to prove it actually did suppress wages
I don't know how you can since there was no trial and no findings

Hey your whole defense of why they settled depends on your ridiculous claim it would have been more expensive to go to court. Since they all have lawyers on payroll let's hear why it was cheaper to settle.

You don't know how law suits work do you?

The plaintiffs ( the people suing) do not pay their lawyers their lawyers keep one third of the settlement

So the question again is why did they settle for a paltry couple grand each?

So I guess you have nothing to defend your ridiculous claim?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you were sooooooooooo hurt by an employer would you settle for 2 grand?

This stinks even more of bullshit once you find out that these whiners only got a couple grand each

That does nothing to prove your claim. Try again.

Hey you have to prove it actually did suppress wages
I don't know how you can since there was no trial and no findings

Hey your whole defense of why they settled depends on your ridiculous claim it would have been more expensive to go to court. Since they all have lawyers on payroll let's hear why it was cheaper to settle.

You don't know how law suits work do you?

The plaintiffs ( the people suing) do not pay their lawyers their lawyers keep one third of the settlement

So the question again is why did they settle for a paltry couple grand each?

So I guess you have nothing to defend your ridiculous claim?

Why won't you answer my question?

 

[Brain357]

That does nothing to prove your claim. Try again.

Hey you have to prove it actually did suppress wages
I don't know how you can since there was no trial and no findings

Hey your whole defense of why they settled depends on your ridiculous claim it would have been more expensive to go to court. Since they all have lawyers on payroll let's hear why it was cheaper to settle.

You don't know how law suits work do you?

The plaintiffs ( the people suing) do not pay their lawyers their lawyers keep one third of the settlement

So the question again is why did they settle for a paltry couple grand each?

So I guess you have nothing to defend your ridiculous claim?

Why won't you answer my question?

Waiting for you to answer mine. Yours is not relevant btw. Now please explain why it was cheaper to settle for hundreds of millions.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Really? You are crazy. You are telling me, that people plan their monthly budget, around a one time a year check, that they don't even know how much is going to be in it?

Really stupid aren't ya. Seeing as how I didn't say MONTHLY budget, you be lying.

But if you think a tax preparer can't give a pretty good estimate of EITC money, you need to talk to a tax preparer.

And if you think low wage people don't sit and plan what they will do with their tax return, I would state that your stupidity is as boundless as skulls.

Lucky you.

Now type something else dumb.

Like with the alternator. They are smaller cause they need to reduce weight of the vehicle. So they can meet the new CAFE standards. Brought to us by the hated Obama.

Feel better now? It's Obama fault we have small alternators.

And God's fault you got a tiny brain. LMAO.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hey you have to prove it actually did suppress wages
I don't know how you can since there was no trial and no findings

Hey your whole defense of why they settled depends on your ridiculous claim it would have been more expensive to go to court. Since they all have lawyers on payroll let's hear why it was cheaper to settle.

You don't know how law suits work do you?

The plaintiffs ( the people suing) do not pay their lawyers their lawyers keep one third of the settlement

So the question again is why did they settle for a paltry couple grand each?

So I guess you have nothing to defend your ridiculous claim?

Why won't you answer my question?

Waiting for you to answer mine. Yours is not relevant btw. Now please explain why it was cheaper to settle for hundreds of millions.

You still don't get it do you

I told you why the companies being sued settled you have yet to tell me why the people suing settled for such a paltry amount since they didn't have any lawyer fees to pay.