McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[Preacher]

Thanks to the left, now even high school kids can't get jobs.

Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service Kiosks Nationwide

GOP-We only support welfare for corporations!
GOP-Too stupid to realize underpaid workers=workers getting welfare!

If society determines that no one should get less than $15/hr whether they earn it or not, society should step up to the plate and make it happen through welfare. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

If SOCIETY had its way we would all be making a livable wage. Political whores paid by corporations refuse to do as the people want.

 

[usmbguest5318]

there is not that much difference between the CEO and the welfare queen.

Yes there is. The CEO can position himself to get millions in taxpayer money. No "welfare queen" can do that.

Well, I did mention a difference between thousands and millions. But there was a couple of "welfare queens" in South Carolina. Sisters, took millions from the defense department shipping screws to Iraq. So yeah, it can be done--just not via welfare benefits. The Defense department has always been the ticket.

Well, ain't that a fine illustration of "where there's a will, there's a way?" Of course, welfare recipients, like so many of their brethren not on the dole but who yet still gripe about what they don't have, can't get, and what's wrong that they know how to fix but won't tell a soul but who needs to hear it, but sure as God made little green apples they'll tell you, me and everyone else here about it and expect us to think it makes some damn sense.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm calling bullshit.

They would have done the kiosk thing anyway.

How long does it take to design and develop the kiosks and computer programs? How long to install them nationwide?

This has been in the works longer than the call for wage increases.

How do you know? A kid making $8.00 an hour might be cheaper than the infrastructure costs needed to keep kiosks running. What we do know is that companies always look ahead for things (at least the successful ones do) and their concern might be that $15 an hour STILL won't placate the union idiots, and then they want $20 an hour.

That is very, very likely to become true. No matter where you set the MW, within a remarkably short period of time inflation devours any advantage it gave.

not true at all. price inflation for fuel was swallowed by the right wing, with relative ease.

Put the bong down, you're sounding more bizarre than normal.

just clueless, Causeless, and full of fallacy; i got it.

 

[danielpalos]

According to the National Restaurant Association [NRA], a $15.00 minimum wage equates a 4.3% increase in cost to a Big Mac.

Hmmm....How could the NRA know that? Is that figure just an estimate on their part and that is extrapolated (by the NRA or by you) from some sort of industry wide data? The COGs for a Big Mac is a very specific thing and a data point that would be proprietary to McDonald's. ("Cost" and "price" are not the same things. They may and can be to you as a consumer, but to a business, they are not. I wouldn't raise that point were it you sharing your own ideas for I'd presume you mean "price" not "cost," but you are ostensibly sharing an financial measurement data point calculated by an industry organization; therefore the distinction becomes relevant.)

I found a similar assertion to yours, but it's not at all the same assertion. What I found is, "Raising wages to $15 an hour for limited-service restaurant employees would lead to an estimated 4.3 percent increase in prices at those restaurants, according to a recent study." A 4.3% price increase is something that applies across the board -- all producers and their offerings throughout the industry -- but the specific impact will be less at companies that are less dependent on labor and more at companies that rely more heavily on labor.

What's the real impact of that? That's not easy to say outside of at very high levels and withing an economics context. Why? Well, take a look at the various dimensions at which restaurant labor compensated. Here are some considerations:

• In the presence of an increased minimum wage whereby all employees were paid below $15/hour, will all workers be content with their statutorily granted raise or will more skilled/senior workers demand relatively higher wages than lower skilled workers, even though both just received a decent pay increase? I don't know.
• In locales where the monopsony effect will occur, the mandated wage increase is a better thing than a worse thing. Thus, small-enough town America stands to benefit greatly from minimum wage increases, whereas larger cities, and definitely big ones, will benefit differently. We can talk about those different types of benefits if you want, but the short of it is that the big city benefit is a better quality of life due to lower crime rates. That's actually better for city dwellers as well as visitors.

Those are just two examples, but if you read the content at the links, you'll surely see the complexity of the matter as well as the insufficiency of concluding based on one metric.

One other thing:

• That 4.3% price increase is wide open to question. I can't say what yielded the 4.3% figure (assuming it comes from Ma & Ghiselli's study that I earlier referred to), and it may well be that there are contextual limitations omitted from the article I read about the study. It could also be that you and I are referring to different studies.
  • Does the Minimum Wage Bite into Fast-Food Prices?
    
  • The Minimum Wage, Restaurant Prices, and Labor Market Structure
    
  • The Effects of Increasing the Minimum Wage on Prices: Analyzing the Incidence of Policy Design and Context

I don't eat at McDonald's because I can't eat chemically laden food, but if I did, paying $0.17 more for a Big Mac isn't going to break me, especially if my income tax bill is reduced by several hundred dollars for doing so.

Having taxpayers support low wage workers through EIC's and food stamps so that prices won't rise by a small percentage, is a lot more fiscally sound that having every taxpaying American sudsidize Walmart to the tune of $2,500 per year.

Assuming the $0.17 is correct (see discussion above), McDonald's is thrilled about your expressed relatively price inelastic stance; moreover they are counting on that being so for millions of other people. (McD's knows the demand for their produces is relatively inelastic.) They are because that seventeen cents to McDonald's is some ~$93M.

It is still not the right wing fantasy the right tries to pass as the "gospel Truth" regarding price inflation.

Frankly, it doesn't really make that much sense for non-economists to talk about prices and inflation. I say that because everything goes retro except prices.

I think too few people say or hear that such and such lowers prices and in turn think that means "the price they see now will sometime in the future be lower than it is now." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Quite simply, "keeping prices low" means "slow the rate of increase."

it doesn't stop the right wing, from having nothing but fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

Thanks to the left, now even high school kids can't get jobs.

Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service Kiosks Nationwide

GOP-We only support welfare for corporations!
GOP-Too stupid to realize underpaid workers=workers getting welfare!

If society determines that no one should get less than $15/hr whether they earn it or not, society should step up to the plate and make it happen through welfare. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

only the right wing prefers to socialize costs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Look. You don't seem to understand. Mostly because you can't stop worrying about those other people in the cart. Again, who is pushing, who is pulling, and who is riding is secondary to where the cart is going.

But more importantly, you are missing two critical realities. First, there is not that much difference between the CEO and the welfare queen. Just like the welfare queen, the CEO could be DESTROYING value and hurting the economy. Worse, the CEO can do it to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Even the biggest welfare queen is only going to cost thousands of dollars a year, not millions.

Yes, I do worry about those other people in the cart because my country is quickly approaching 20 trillion dollars in debt and it's my money they are living on in that cart. They should be out working and creating tax dollars instead of sucking them up. These people are not real Americans as they don't give a damn about the future of this country.

If a CEO does a crummy job, that's between him and his company. It has nothing to do with taxpayers and he will lose value in employment if he allows his company to take a dive. Unlike the welfare queen, he is flying around all over the country and perhaps out of the country. He wakes up and goes to work every morning. He has a huge responsibility on his hands.

Look, I have enjoyed it, but you don't seem to be paying attention and I can't help but believe it is due to your obsession about the people in the cart. In all honesty, it seems kind of crazy to worry about the people riding in the cart when some mofros are blowing up the track ahead and taking apart the cart as it is traveling down the track.

Same thing about the debt and tax dollars. Why worry about the pennies--that is welfare, when the government is bleeding dollars in the form of tax expenditures to subsidize everything from your mortgage to Richey Rich's yacht. And that CEO---that is where you are not paying attention. He is not building wealth, nor is it getting a return on capital. He is EXTRACTING wealth and HARVESTING capital. And damn skippy he has got a responsibility, to his shareholders, not to himself. When those CEOs structure stock buybacks simply to inflate stock prices that explode their own compensation, off the balance sheets, they are not adequately fulfilling their obligation to the shareholders, and worse--they are not riding in the cart. They really are tearing up the tracks and cannibalizing parts of the cart.

Nobody is blowing up anything. Companies create wealth in order to pay those people in that cart. If you are poor, what country would you rather be in than a capitalist one?

As for welfare spending, I hardly call spending over 1 trillion dollars a year "pennies" as you put it.

 

[OnePercenter]

According to the National Restaurant Association [NRA], a $15.00 minimum wage equates a 4.3% increase in cost to a Big Mac.

Hmmm....How could the NRA know that? Is that figure just an estimate on their part and that is extrapolated (by the NRA or by you) from some sort of industry wide data? The COGs for a Big Mac is a very specific thing and a data point that would be proprietary to McDonald's. ("Cost" and "price" are not the same things. They may and can be to you as a consumer, but to a business, they are not. I wouldn't raise that point were it you sharing your own ideas for I'd presume you mean "price" not "cost," but you are ostensibly sharing an financial measurement data point calculated by an industry organization; therefore the distinction becomes relevant.)

I found a similar assertion to yours, but it's not at all the same assertion. What I found is, "Raising wages to $15 an hour for limited-service restaurant employees would lead to an estimated 4.3 percent increase in prices at those restaurants, according to a recent study." A 4.3% price increase is something that applies across the board -- all producers and their offerings throughout the industry -- but the specific impact will be less at companies that are less dependent on labor and more at companies that rely more heavily on labor.

What's the real impact of that? That's not easy to say outside of at very high levels and withing an economics context. Why? Well, take a look at the various dimensions at which restaurant labor compensated. Here are some considerations:

• In the presence of an increased minimum wage whereby all employees were paid below $15/hour, will all workers be content with their statutorily granted raise or will more skilled/senior workers demand relatively higher wages than lower skilled workers, even though both just received a decent pay increase? I don't know.
• In locales where the monopsony effect will occur, the mandated wage increase is a better thing than a worse thing. Thus, small-enough town America stands to benefit greatly from minimum wage increases, whereas larger cities, and definitely big ones, will benefit differently. We can talk about those different types of benefits if you want, but the short of it is that the big city benefit is a better quality of life due to lower crime rates. That's actually better for city dwellers as well as visitors.

Those are just two examples, but if you read the content at the links, you'll surely see the complexity of the matter as well as the insufficiency of concluding based on one metric.

One other thing:

• That 4.3% price increase is wide open to question. I can't say what yielded the 4.3% figure (assuming it comes from Ma & Ghiselli's study that I earlier referred to), and it may well be that there are contextual limitations omitted from the article I read about the study. It could also be that you and I are referring to different studies.
  • Does the Minimum Wage Bite into Fast-Food Prices?
    
  • The Minimum Wage, Restaurant Prices, and Labor Market Structure
    
  • The Effects of Increasing the Minimum Wage on Prices: Analyzing the Incidence of Policy Design and Context

I don't eat at McDonald's because I can't eat chemically laden food, but if I did, paying $0.17 more for a Big Mac isn't going to break me, especially if my income tax bill is reduced by several hundred dollars for doing so.

Having taxpayers support low wage workers through EIC's and food stamps so that prices won't rise by a small percentage, is a lot more fiscally sound that having every taxpaying American sudsidize Walmart to the tune of $2,500 per year.

Assuming the $0.17 is correct (see discussion above), McDonald's is thrilled about your expressed relatively price inelastic stance; moreover they are counting on that being so for millions of other people. (McD's knows the demand for their produces is relatively inelastic.) They are because that seventeen cents to McDonald's is some ~$93M.

Do you really want to go there? The National Restaurant Association is the industry representative.

 

[OnePercenter]

Restaurants in my area are simply adding a surcharge onto the bill for min wage hike. I love it.

As liberals showed with the failed Stimulus Bill (packed with 7,000 pieces of DNC pork), fiscal intelligence / responsibility is not their strong suit.

The stimulus bill added 2M jobs. How is that a failure? Then, of course, it wouldn't have been necessary if Bush had done his job.

The failure in Washington has been Republicans not pushing for living wages for American workers.

Right, because that's what DumBama and the Democrats did when they had full power of the federal government.

That was in the late 70's.

 

[OnePercenter]

The average McDonalds nets $156,000 on 2.6 million dollars in yearly sales. If they can't afford a wage increase out of the $156,000 how they hell are they going to purchase expensive automation equipment?

The Ugly Truth About Ed Rensi

Did you read the article you quoted? McDonalds head office takes 35% of that $2.6 million for rent, franchise fees and various other charges.

Considering that McDonalds made 9 billion net profit last year, they could certainly afford to adjust those fees to assist franchise owners with changes in the minimum wage.

McDonalds in Canada manages to pay $12 per hour and our prices are lower on some items that they are in the US. So does Walmart. Both corporations are very profitable in Canada. Puts the lie to the idea that these companies can't afford a wage hike.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Again, it has nothing to do with what McDonald's can afford, it has to do with paying people a wage the job is worth. Only a fool would pay somebody more money than they need to.

How much do you pay an employee that makes you all of your money?

The value of an employee is what an employer can get another person do to the same job for. That's it.

That's not an answer, it's an ignorant statement.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The average McDonalds nets $156,000 on 2.6 million dollars in yearly sales. If they can't afford a wage increase out of the $156,000 how they hell are they going to purchase expensive automation equipment?

The Ugly Truth About Ed Rensi

Did you read the article you quoted? McDonalds head office takes 35% of that $2.6 million for rent, franchise fees and various other charges.

Considering that McDonalds made 9 billion net profit last year, they could certainly afford to adjust those fees to assist franchise owners with changes in the minimum wage.

McDonalds in Canada manages to pay $12 per hour and our prices are lower on some items that they are in the US. So does Walmart. Both corporations are very profitable in Canada. Puts the lie to the idea that these companies can't afford a wage hike.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Again, it has nothing to do with what McDonald's can afford, it has to do with paying people a wage the job is worth. Only a fool would pay somebody more money than they need to.

How much do you pay an employee that makes you all of your money?

The value of an employee is what an employer can get another person do to the same job for. That's it.

That's not an answer, it's an ignorant statement.

Ignorant in what way? That's exactly how your worth is determined.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Restaurants in my area are simply adding a surcharge onto the bill for min wage hike. I love it.

As liberals showed with the failed Stimulus Bill (packed with 7,000 pieces of DNC pork), fiscal intelligence / responsibility is not their strong suit.

The stimulus bill added 2M jobs. How is that a failure? Then, of course, it wouldn't have been necessary if Bush had done his job.

The failure in Washington has been Republicans not pushing for living wages for American workers.

Right, because that's what DumBama and the Democrats did when they had full power of the federal government.

That was in the late 70's.

No, it was when DumBama first took office. How do you think he got Commie Care passed--with Republicans?

 

[initforme]

Keep the min wage as it is....McDonalds stores don't want their good workers to stay...I stake my life on it. McDonalds is built on low wages and not expecting productivity. So decent Americans never ever think of working in shitholes like that.

 

[Rambunctious]

At least the self serve kiosks won't put cream and sugar into your black coffee.

 

[OnePercenter]

Walmart voluntarily raised their in-house minimum wage while at the same time they're pushing self-serve checkout.

Go ahead and explain that if you think higher minimum wage is what's driving automation.

Refuse to use the self-serve check out.

 

[OnePercenter]

Thanks to the left, now even high school kids can't get jobs.

Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service Kiosks Nationwide

I also call bullshit. The same person that takes your order brings you your food. How would an automated order system reduce staff?

Don't forget you're also going to have automated burger ovens. There is very little that happens in a McDonald's kitchen that cannot be highly automated.

Mechanical conveyor ovens are the only automated ovens we'll be seeing in our lifetime, and those have been around for decades.

The PC was the last advent of new technology. Everything else has been repackaged.

 

[OnePercenter]

Did you read the article you quoted? McDonalds head office takes 35% of that $2.6 million for rent, franchise fees and various other charges.

Considering that McDonalds made 9 billion net profit last year, they could certainly afford to adjust those fees to assist franchise owners with changes in the minimum wage.

McDonalds in Canada manages to pay $12 per hour and our prices are lower on some items that they are in the US. So does Walmart. Both corporations are very profitable in Canada. Puts the lie to the idea that these companies can't afford a wage hike.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Again, it has nothing to do with what McDonald's can afford, it has to do with paying people a wage the job is worth. Only a fool would pay somebody more money than they need to.

How much do you pay an employee that makes you all of your money?

The value of an employee is what an employer can get another person do to the same job for. That's it.

That's not an answer, it's an ignorant statement.

Ignorant in what way? That's exactly how your worth is determined.

How much do you pay an employee that makes you all of you money. Worth is not a mathematical factor.

 

[OnePercenter]

Restaurants in my area are simply adding a surcharge onto the bill for min wage hike. I love it.

As liberals showed with the failed Stimulus Bill (packed with 7,000 pieces of DNC pork), fiscal intelligence / responsibility is not their strong suit.

The stimulus bill added 2M jobs. How is that a failure? Then, of course, it wouldn't have been necessary if Bush had done his job.

The failure in Washington has been Republicans not pushing for living wages for American workers.

Right, because that's what DumBama and the Democrats did when they had full power of the federal government.

That was in the late 70's.

No, it was when DumBama first took office. How do you think he got Commie Care passed--with Republicans?

The Democrats had the White House and a majority in the Senate and House? Are you sure about that?

 

[Winston]

Look. You don't seem to understand. Mostly because you can't stop worrying about those other people in the cart. Again, who is pushing, who is pulling, and who is riding is secondary to where the cart is going.

But more importantly, you are missing two critical realities. First, there is not that much difference between the CEO and the welfare queen. Just like the welfare queen, the CEO could be DESTROYING value and hurting the economy. Worse, the CEO can do it to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Even the biggest welfare queen is only going to cost thousands of dollars a year, not millions.

Yes, I do worry about those other people in the cart because my country is quickly approaching 20 trillion dollars in debt and it's my money they are living on in that cart. They should be out working and creating tax dollars instead of sucking them up. These people are not real Americans as they don't give a damn about the future of this country.

If a CEO does a crummy job, that's between him and his company. It has nothing to do with taxpayers and he will lose value in employment if he allows his company to take a dive. Unlike the welfare queen, he is flying around all over the country and perhaps out of the country. He wakes up and goes to work every morning. He has a huge responsibility on his hands.

Look, I have enjoyed it, but you don't seem to be paying attention and I can't help but believe it is due to your obsession about the people in the cart. In all honesty, it seems kind of crazy to worry about the people riding in the cart when some mofros are blowing up the track ahead and taking apart the cart as it is traveling down the track.

Same thing about the debt and tax dollars. Why worry about the pennies--that is welfare, when the government is bleeding dollars in the form of tax expenditures to subsidize everything from your mortgage to Richey Rich's yacht. And that CEO---that is where you are not paying attention. He is not building wealth, nor is it getting a return on capital. He is EXTRACTING wealth and HARVESTING capital. And damn skippy he has got a responsibility, to his shareholders, not to himself. When those CEOs structure stock buybacks simply to inflate stock prices that explode their own compensation, off the balance sheets, they are not adequately fulfilling their obligation to the shareholders, and worse--they are not riding in the cart. They really are tearing up the tracks and cannibalizing parts of the cart.

Nobody is blowing up anything. Companies create wealth in order to pay those people in that cart. If you are poor, what country would you rather be in than a capitalist one?

As for welfare spending, I hardly call spending over 1 trillion dollars a year "pennies" as you put it.

And you prove my point. First, you are not paying attention. If the total amount of money spent on stock repurchase arrangements exceeds the total amount of new capital formation--those CEO's and corporations are not creating shit. They are harvesting it. They are selling the proverbial milk cow. And over the last decade or more, that is precisely what has happened. So yes, they really are destroying CAPITAL. The very rails that our economy cart rolls on.

And that one trillion dollars in welfare is right at the same amount the government spends on "tax expenditures". If we can't afford the welfare we damn sure as hell can't afford those "tax expenditures". So yeah, it's pennies on the dollar. Matter of fact, the government gives the same amount of "welfare" to corporations and working individuals in the form of the tax treatment of company provided health insurance, tax deductions for mortgage interest, and depletion allowances for mineral extraction.

In the end, it is just like I said, you just can't keep your mind off those people riding in the cart. It is not important. What is important is where the hell the cart is going. And right now, well it is going nowhere fast.

What really is happening. Well we are destroying capital. Hell, the cart is rolling down hill. The cart is rolling down hill and the one percent are sitting in it. Yep, the welfare queens are in there with em. It is why the one percent wants to throw them out, they stinking up the damn place, and hogging all the shrimp on the buffet. But the ones you claim are working and pulling the cart, they done got run over and are being left behind.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Look. You don't seem to understand. Mostly because you can't stop worrying about those other people in the cart. Again, who is pushing, who is pulling, and who is riding is secondary to where the cart is going.

But more importantly, you are missing two critical realities. First, there is not that much difference between the CEO and the welfare queen. Just like the welfare queen, the CEO could be DESTROYING value and hurting the economy. Worse, the CEO can do it to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Even the biggest welfare queen is only going to cost thousands of dollars a year, not millions.

Yes, I do worry about those other people in the cart because my country is quickly approaching 20 trillion dollars in debt and it's my money they are living on in that cart. They should be out working and creating tax dollars instead of sucking them up. These people are not real Americans as they don't give a damn about the future of this country.

If a CEO does a crummy job, that's between him and his company. It has nothing to do with taxpayers and he will lose value in employment if he allows his company to take a dive. Unlike the welfare queen, he is flying around all over the country and perhaps out of the country. He wakes up and goes to work every morning. He has a huge responsibility on his hands.

Look, I have enjoyed it, but you don't seem to be paying attention and I can't help but believe it is due to your obsession about the people in the cart. In all honesty, it seems kind of crazy to worry about the people riding in the cart when some mofros are blowing up the track ahead and taking apart the cart as it is traveling down the track.

Same thing about the debt and tax dollars. Why worry about the pennies--that is welfare, when the government is bleeding dollars in the form of tax expenditures to subsidize everything from your mortgage to Richey Rich's yacht. And that CEO---that is where you are not paying attention. He is not building wealth, nor is it getting a return on capital. He is EXTRACTING wealth and HARVESTING capital. And damn skippy he has got a responsibility, to his shareholders, not to himself. When those CEOs structure stock buybacks simply to inflate stock prices that explode their own compensation, off the balance sheets, they are not adequately fulfilling their obligation to the shareholders, and worse--they are not riding in the cart. They really are tearing up the tracks and cannibalizing parts of the cart.

Nobody is blowing up anything. Companies create wealth in order to pay those people in that cart. If you are poor, what country would you rather be in than a capitalist one?

As for welfare spending, I hardly call spending over 1 trillion dollars a year "pennies" as you put it.

And you prove my point. First, you are not paying attention. If the total amount of money spent on stock repurchase arrangements exceeds the total amount of new capital formation--those CEO's and corporations are not creating shit. They are harvesting it. They are selling the proverbial milk cow. And over the last decade or more, that is precisely what has happened. So yes, they really are destroying CAPITAL. The very rails that our economy cart rolls on.

And that one trillion dollars in welfare is right at the same amount the government spends on "tax expenditures". If we can't afford the welfare we damn sure as hell can't afford those "tax expenditures". So yeah, it's pennies on the dollar. Matter of fact, the government gives the same amount of "welfare" to corporations and working individuals in the form of the tax treatment of company provided health insurance, tax deductions for mortgage interest, and depletion allowances for mineral extraction.

In the end, it is just like I said, you just can't keep your mind off those people riding in the cart. It is not important. What is important is where the hell the cart is going. And right now, well it is going nowhere fast.

What really is happening. Well we are destroying capital. Hell, the cart is rolling down hill. The cart is rolling down hill and the one percent are sitting in it. Yep, the welfare queens are in there with em. It is why the one percent wants to throw them out, they stinking up the damn place, and hogging all the shrimp on the buffet. But the ones you claim are working and pulling the cart, they done got run over and are being left behind.

Why are you so focused on what the private market does compared to the public? Don't worry about the private market, they have survived for centuries without your help or opinion. Worry more about the public since that involves all of us.

And no, once again, welfare is not letting people keep their very own money. That's leftist talk for "all money belongs to government, and what they allow you to keep is a gift from government to you" which is utter BS. Letting taxpayers keep one trillion dollars of their own money is altogether different than government giving people one trillion dollars so they don't have to work or accept any responsibility in life.

And no, the one percent are not in the cart, they are pulling the cart the hardest. That's how they became the one percent in the first place. Nobody in the cart gets ahead in life.

 

[initforme]

The one percent isn't pulling the cart...the workers that make the profit for them are pulliung the cart. The one percent could never muster enough guts to pull the cart. The one percent gets their money by having real people do the real work. The one percent are not to be trusted. I stake my life on it.