Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Guess Who Works The Most In America -- The Poor" video.

And very high unemployment and little to no productivity.
3
red244 I do see issues with store managers but one thing you have to consider is that businesses don't like to always hire from within. People get too comfortable. Being in college for 9 years and being a grad. student I see problems with those who do their PhD in the school they got their undergrad from, or worse, get a job where they got a PhD. That is called Academic Incest and the person doing it gets too comfortable, or doesn't work hard. Working hard is going someplace else most of the time, challenging yourself.
2
Damn people working hard to get time off. I am not spending hours in the lab, studying on my courses and working hard on my PhD to just simply work hard in the future. I am doing it to put myself in a position to have time off and enjoy my life. The reason why businesses are gutting benefits like paid time off is because due to higher taxes and regulations they simply can't afford it. The left is so wanting to just give money to the lazy that the money and production has to come from somewhere. Businesses have no choice but to cut expenses somewhere.
2
ThePharphis How so?
1
ThePharphis Or it will lead to less productivity because then people will be asking for more. 9 weeks is a long time as is.
1
Felizda Kat No, but making it a law that people get time off would lead to more laws catering to laziness. It is one thing to have schedule days off and a business giving to you, but to have the government do will lead to laziness.
1
Felizda Kat You get 6 weeks off a year because you worked your way into a job that offers that. You put yourself in that position. That is different than when a law requires businesses to give out days off. That is people just being lazy and no wanting to work to put themselves in a position to have days off. I get days off myself, I work extremely hard and even refuse to take those days off. But there are a set of people who will take advantage of the system.
1
Felizda Kat When the government does it than people feel entitled to have it. It snowballs into feeling entitled to have more than a business can afford. Next it could be that people feel they are entitled to longer breaks, to more pay, or shorter hours during the week. The fact is that people are not entitled to anything. When a business gives it away than the individual earned it. They put in the effort to put themselves in a position to have time off. It is not a sense of entitlement but a sense of working hard to get what they want.
1
Ok, who gets what days off? Not everyone can take Christmas off but I bet you the vast majority will try.
1
ThePharphis A lot of businesses do that as well, pay time and a half on holidays. Some do it on Sundays as well and this is without force from a law. If you let businesses be more free than they will pay their employees well.
1
ThePharphis Singapore has no minimum wage but high per capital GDP. But let us look at the US. Less than 5% of workers earn at or below the min. wage and that percent has been dropping for years. 2/3 of min. wage workers get a raise within a year. The average hourly earnings in the US is over $24/hr. Businesses do pay more, but there comes a point where they can't afford it.
1
James Dagnan Most businesses work in thin profit margins. They are close to going bankrupt. Some businesses can't afford to pay more because they simply can't afford it. The business exist because there is a demand for it so they have customers. But a business is not a charity. It can't just sit there and take a loss just to pay workers, who refuse to better themselves in any way, more. It is up to you to figure out how to live, all the business can do is offer you a product or a job.
1
ThePharphis Yeah, as in high school students, retirees or individuals looking for a part time job for supplemental income. Consider this, creating a situation where those workers are paid more means less money for managers who actually do work fulltime. The money has to come from somewhere.
1
James Dagnan So what, they worked for it they can spend their money how they like. That also creates jobs, them spending money like that. I guess we can regress as a society to where everyone is surviving off of food and water, or we can allow growth to happen. Who cares what those people do with their money, the reason why they have it is because they provided a service that society demand. I am on the side of economic growth.
1
ThePharphis Well, the average household income of those earning $9.50/hr or less is over $47,000/yr. There is a 2 to 1 ratio, percent wise, of those who work part time and those who work full time and earn the min. wage. Simple fact is that the individual needs to find a way to make it. If they are not willing to work harder to earn more then they can find a way to cut expenses by asking for help from friends or family or getting a roommate. Now if you refuse to work harder or have nobody willing to help you than what are you worth in life? Sorry for being an asshole but that is the truth.
1
James Dagnan How many people own 20 yachts? Go talk to some small business owners and ask them what they own, I guarantee you it is less than you think.
1
James Dagnan I actually encourage people to ask for help from friends and family. That is what a strong society does. As long as the person receiving help works hard in return, and if friends and family are willing to help chances are they do work hard. I helped out a friend who lost her job by allowing her in my home, I knew she was going to put forth effort to find a job and she did, now she has her own place to live. But forcing people to "help" isn't good and breaks a society apart. I know that those with less than me are all not lazy. But there are those who exist and it bothers me. I have no desire to help them because they don't care. If you are willing to put forth the effort then people will help you and you will succeed. But we have too many leaches in society. And who are you to determine who has more than they need? Do I? You do know I have no heat in my apartment to save money. I eat Mac and Cheese at times and Ramen Noodles to save money. I am not well off. I am not jealous though, and I use my situation to work hard and get better instead of crying about it and making excuses. I don't sit there and envy the rich, I sit there and think about how I can make myself better. Developing a society of leeches, like you want, it not good.
1
James Dagnan I am not playing the victim. The point is that life requires work. Someone can have a few roommates and split the internet bill. More roommates means lower rent. They can cut back on expenses like I am by not running my heat. But in the end it requires work. This whole idea of people earning enough money is flawed. What is enough money? You can't make that determination. What you can determine is what one's market rate is and that is how you are paid. If you are not paid enough either find a way to earn more or cut expenses. But asking businesses to be charities isn't a sound way to improve an economy. But if you are going to ask businesses to just give money away, how about you do it as well. Go bring in a few homeless people to live with you. Go start a business and pay people what you think they should get paid. As of right now you seem to have no problem being generous with other people's money.
1
James Dagnan McDonalds are franchised and work on thin profit margins. Plus less profits means less investment and overall less results. I am not opposed to people having a better life, but in order for people to have a better life we have to allow people to grow, we don't improve society by bringing people down. We can have a society where everyone is "comfortable", but we won't have any growth, like Cuba. I personally want investment and improvement in life. I earn less money then my dad did when he was my age. But my dad didn't have a smart phone, or high speed internet, or a vehicle as nice as mine, or a TV. People are better of now than in the past that is because we allowed for growth. You want to limit growth.
1
James Dagnan Well you are the one on poverty and leeching off of me. Ignorance must be great. Remember when you use your health insurance who paid for it, not you but me and others that actually work and don't brag about being in poverty. You are a greedy individual. You want others to pay for your wants instead of working for it yourself.
1
James Dagnan You just said you have insurance now because of Obamacare. I imagine it is more affordable, that is because people like myself have to pay more now. You also said you are around the poverty line. For working 40 hours that is sad. If you want to make a comparison I work over 40 hours a week and make less than the min. wage. That is because I am in graduate school and I want to make that sacrifice knowing I will be earning more later. I willing work more for less to achieve a better life. You know, like I said, it requires work.
1
James Dagnan I thought people wanted others to have healthcare. Either way, if you have healthcare or health insurance but the quality sucks than what does it matter.
1
Baby Punter What is "adequate" healthcare? What is your standard? The problem with socialism is that it doesn't allow for growth. It sets the bar low. I want as many people as possible to get the best healthcare possible, and I want it to improve because due to nature evolving healthcare has to make advancement. Socialist healthcare doesn't promote growth. That is why countries that practice universal healthcare have low quality of care and can't do specialized care. What may seem "adequate" now will be inferior in the future, but will be what people continue to get.
1
Baby Punter Nobody paid those high taxes. Joseph Barr in 1967 complained that 155 Americans earning over $200,000, one earning over $23 million, paid no income taxes. Taxes were cut and the code was made simpler to increase tax revenue. It worked to a point. The 1969 tax reform, signed by Richard Nixon placed Nixon in the higher tax bracket where he only paid $789 in taxes. In all, anyone who references those higher taxes during that time as support for higher taxes is being shallow in that it doesn't tell the whole story. Taxes are also only one factor in the economy. Now while this country has never faced a major recession before the federal income tax, and since then has faced two, one also has to realized that spending has increased since around that time as well. We are trying to spend our way into an improved economy which doesn't work. You also have to notice that during times when we had higher taxes or lower taxes, our revenue to percent of GDP was basically the same. The issue here is that we need to push policies that promotes wealth creation, not job creation or money flow. Jobs and money mean nothing if we have no wealth being created. We can easily flow money and create jobs, Cuba does that very well. Is that the economic model we want to follow?
1
Baby Punter Simply google it, you can find it anywhere in several sources. Here is one from forbes on what Barr said, I just got the year wrong http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/10/05/billionaire-poster-boys-for-tax-reform-mellon-buffett-schwarzman-and-koch/ It is an interesting article on higher taxes on the rich. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/Nixon%20Richard%20M%20President%20Watergate%20Files/Property/Item%20021.pdf There is the history of Nixon's taxes. Recessions happen a lot. The Panic of 1873 and 1893 were done and recover from in around 5 years or less along with other recessions. In 1929 that was the first time that we had a recession that took over 5 years to recover from. We didn't recover until the 1940s. During that recession we had massive spending, increase in taxes and regulations. We see the same thing now with the recession of 2007. Massive spending, higher taxes and more regulations. Here it is 7 years later and there is a hint of recovery but not yet. Recessions happen due to the economy evolving, they shouldn't take long to recover from thought. The recessions that took the longest to recover from had the most federal government involvement. The ones that didn't take long had little to no federal government involvement. Policies that push for wealth creation is lower taxes and a simplified tax code. Lower government spending would help as well because government is not in a position to create wealth. The government doesn't have a role in reading the market because the government isn't a business. If the government were a business it would be bankrupt long ago. Lower taxes and a simplified code allows for businesses to invest and grow and compete.
1
Baby Punter It is debatable who has the best healthcare. The US has the best quality of care. Anyone who denies that is being partisan. The biggest problem in the US is cost. In other countries they do have longer wait times and lower quality, especially for elective specialized care. Socialized care is good for basic care as in a check up or if you are pregnant (except in the UK they lack hospital beds for pregnant women), but it is terrible for specialized care. You also have to look at the state of France as a whole. France has high unemployment, low productivity and poor in innovation and research. France's overall economy is poor and isn't a model to follow. Now you tried to compare us to Finland and Sweden. The US has states with a greater population than those countries. You really can't compare the US to those countries. Also, they are not as socialist as you may think. The US is number 4 in productivity, it leads the way in research and innovation in technology and healthcare. We are an overall stronger country than those countries you are trying to brag about. We have actual progress which is what we need. We can see to it that everyone has healthcare, a home, food and so on, but it would come at the cost of progress. It will hinder progress. Which will you rather have, no progress and future generations having the same goods and services we have, or progress and future generations having it better than us? Look at those in poverty now compared to the 50s, someone who is lower class is better off than someone who was rich in the 50s. Our definition of comfort is higher than that in the 50s, or even the 80s and 90s.
1
Baby Punter Yes I have heard of that period, that is 5 years and 5 months, around 5 years like I said and strong growth. The Great Depression was a double dip recession, so we didn't recover as fast as you are saying. What would you rather have, a depression lasting 5 years or one lasting over a decade? Under Bush we were fine until the democrats too control in 2007. Even with that we saw a recession but than under a democrat congress and a socialist president (at least pushing for it) we didn't recover. As I said, recessions happen, Bush left when it started, it was under Obama that we saw slow recovery. Also, under Clinton we saw limited spending. I said before that taxes are a small part of the issue. As I said with our healthcare, we have the best quality in the world. The only country comparable would be Germany. Germany does a lot of things well, I will admit that. There are some things they are inferior too such as their university system but they do some things well. France doesn't. Their economy is weak and not a good model to follow. You did try to compare the US to Sweden and Finland. I am state rights individual and support doing domestic policies at the state level knowing it will be more effective. When we can reduce domestic polices down to the state level than we can run government programs better like Finland and Sweden do. There is more to it than the policies they have. The reason why we are stronger than those countries is because we don't follow them. France isn't an economic powerhouse, their economy is poor. The UK isn't any better. As I said before, Germany does a lot of things well. At the same time their system wouldn't work in the US. For example their university system, it wouldn't work in the US. Leaving university enrollment to only the elite would not work in the US. Where in the US we allow almost anyone in a university and it works well. So what you support is people have equal access to goods and service that we have now? Ok, that is fine. Now in 20 years when the goods and services haven't improved would you call that a success? I wouldn't. While someone who is rich may have access to a yacht or a Porsche, I have access to a Cobalt which gives me over 30 miles to a gallon and will probably last to 200,000 miles. Someone who is rich has access to surround where I have a nicer sound system than what people had in the 80s. I am not rich by the way, I earn very little. You want equal access to goods and services and I want people to have access to better goods and services as time passes. The better goods and services don't appear out of nowhere, they have to come from somewhere, and that is form investment from the top.
1
Booster Gold I do feel that the school president is overpaid, and I got into a debate with him because I don't think he is a good president. But I am paid a competitive rate according compared to other graduate students to other university. If the university were to slash pay then grad. students will go elsewhere. Those businesses would cease to exist if their product is too expensive. I recently decided to stop going to Subway because they cut back on their portions. Those jobs are not that high in demand and if the price of their product becomes too high than people will stop purchasing the items. Just like if the price of a low skill worker becomes too high than a business owner won't hire them.
1
Baby Punter Recession happen. One happen at the end of Bush's term, bad luck on his part. But they shouldn't take 7 years to recover from but that is what happen under Obama due to his poor leadership. The US has the best quality of healthcare in the world, the only problem with the system is cost. But would you rather have high quality of care or cheap care that is inferior. I take the former. Based on productivity France and the UK are not doing well compared to the US. They lack in progress compared to the US. Not a sound economic model to follow. Germany has high admission standards, they are very selective in who goes to college where in the US we have a system where those who lack skills and knowledge can go to a JuCo or a CC to take remedial courses to get into a larger university. We offer opportunity. And working with foreigners at the university they picked the US over Germany because one, we speak English and their second language was English like most countries, and two, universities pay their graduate students enough to actually afford bills and rent to where they don't have to get a job, Germany doesn't do that. The US offers flexibility, jobs on campus and opportunity for all. And cost is an issue, but almost anyone qualifies for loans and if you work hard and earn the right degree you will easily pay them off. The US has the best university system in the world. The reason why someone, or a company has money is because they offer a good or service society demands. They have something society is willing to buy. Due to competition they will invest in developing a better good or service, failure to do so will lead to that company going under. That is why we see progress. If a company is just going to lose that money they worked hard to earn than what is the point of working hard? The rich don't just sit on their money. Giving the rich money isn't trickle down. Giving money away doesn't solve anything, it devalues the dollar. What Hoover did, increasing spending, doesn't help. FDR did the same thing. We saw a double dip recession because the first recovery was artificial, that is why it crashed again when he stop spending (kind of). FDR increased spending and we saw the longest recovery ever from a recession, it correlated with massive federal government spending. FDR was an overrated president and the New Deal did a lot of harm. There is a reason why we had slow recovery. We can't spend our way out of the recession. The Obama administration tried the same thing giving $85 billion a month to the stock market. It clearly didn't help.
1
Baby Punter But yet the US university system is the best in the world.
1
Booster Gold Did you have to use specialized care or basic care? If you had to use the former than in the US you would have gotten better care. That is where the US excels in, specialized care. I actually don't watch Fox, so don't use that genetic fallacy. In this country's history we have seen recessions. All except for 2 were done and recovered from in around 5 years or less. Those recessions had little to no federal government involvement. The 2 who saw long recovery was massive spending, higher taxes and regulations. Under FDR we saw a double dip recession and slow recovery due to more spending and taxes. That is a simple fact. We are seeing the same thing now in the recession of 2007. You know if those recessions involved lower taxes and spending the left will be screaming at the top of their longs. Instead they cherry pick to try to support more government. The US is number one in the university system. Germany's university education isn't that great. It is good but inferior to the US. They are not as flexible with students, they don't offer a way for students to work to earn a paycheck to pay for rent and bills. The US does, especially with graduate students who are crucial for research, which the US excels more than Germany. I do admit that Germany does a lot well, but the US does a lot more better. Loans will not be a problem if students were not pulling out loans to be a liberal arts major. I have loans, quite a bit actually. I am going to be earning an advance degree that will pay a lot in the end thus it won't be a problem.
1
Baby Punter The problem with the US system is cost. Problem is that taking subjective opinions isn't the best. I would like healthcare as well if I had to pay little because I don't have anything seriously wrong like most people. The issue is that we need to focus on specialized and critical care which the US excels in. I like the idea knowing that if something critical happens I can get immediate and high quality of care as opposed to a place like the UK where you have to wait months to get a MRI, or in Canada where you can't get surgery if you want it. By your stats you proved my point that the US is high on productivity. So what is your point? It is relevant to healthcare. One argument for universal healthcare is that it leads to higher productivity, is surely doesn't though when one looks at it. We have cheap options for schools. My undergrad was $10,000 a year where others are $10,000 a semester. And my $10,000 was including summer. Currently I pay little in tuition due to my TA ship. Several businesses pay to send their employees to get their masters. We have as system where people can get their college paid for and even get money to earn a living, it requires work though. I know about the stats of med. school students and high loans. Now how much do they get paid after they are done? http://pharmacy.umn.edu/pharmd/admissions/ There in pharmacy they have on average $107,000 of loans, but a median starting salary of $120,000. As I said before, get a degree that actually means something than your loan wouldn't matter. And $29,000 in loans isn't much and should easily be paid off if you earn a college degree. So the Waltons sit on their money? Those Walmarts that they keep opening just appeared out of nowhere? Right. I referenced Nixon to show that during those times of high taxes nobody paid them. People just don't get rich, they get that way by investing and developing capital. It isn't like the money came out of nowhere. In this point you need to learn what money is. Just because the middle class has more money doesn't mean they are better off. Money only gets its value based on the goods and services available. If we give money away to people without developing goods and services than all you have done is lower the value of the dollar. The min. wage argument is asinine in that there isn't one good reason to even have it. All arguments supporting it are easily debunk. Your argument of more money in the hands of the lower classed is debunked because they will be earning more money without the production of more goods and services, thus prices go up or jobs are lost. Under FDR it was the first time the government tried to spend it's way out of a recession. The recovery was artificial because it wasn't the market recovery, it was the federal government holding it up. As soon as the let go the economy fell apart. We have never seen that in the past and there is a reason why, federal government spending doesn't help. FDR enacted more spending and the recession lasted a long time. We have never faced anything like that before in the past and haven't since until 2007. This time we didn't face a recovery though despite the increase of spending. But in the end the New Deal and spending by FDR didn't help, it made things worse. I am not advocating giving money to the rich. We shouldn't be giving money away. We should allow for a system that creates wealth and capital, not a system that just moves money around. You are screaming about jobs and money when that doesn't matter, wealth is what matter. People actually work less and produce more these days due to technology. Our jobs are easier. We can easily create jobs and flow money around. We can raise taxes and build that Keystone pipeline but instead use spoons to dig. It will never get built but we will always have jobs and money flow. The economy is more complex than what you think. To you it is all about money (which you clearly don't even know what money is) and jobs. We need to focus on creating wealth. And we do have the best university system in the world. As I said, we pay our grad. students to come here, enough to where they can pay rent. Germany doesn't do that.
1
Baby Punter Commonwealth is not a credible source. Like most sources on the issue they are vague and leave out a lot of details. The overall issue with healthcare in the US is that universal healthcare won't work in the US. Our society is completely different than that of other countries. The system we have works great for us. Universal healthcare has it's problems, anyone who denies it is being partisan. That is the other issue, why should we push for a system that has problems as well? Why not push for something better? Why can't we be different? You have no problem confirming to other countries. If that is the case then move to one. As I said before, the US is number one in innovation and we should keep it that way. Anyone who is myopic like yourself shouldn't be involved and should stop holding us back. The US does a lot well in healthcare. We are number in in responsive care. We have the best quality especially in specialized care. We don't have people waiting months to get a MRI and eventually die from curable problems. We should stop comparing us to another system that has problems as well and push to have the best system possible. I guess I wouldn't expect anything less form someone who is lazy and just wants a handout. Those who want universal healthcare just want a handout and don't want to work for something better. That is not how we get better as a society. You cited the huffington post, that is all I need to know how partisan you are. The Huffington Post is as liberal as it gets and is as unreliable as it gets. The simple fact is that the US leads the way in productivity. The lowest I have seen it was 4th. Why do you want to push for more socialism that will ruin our productivity? Oh, that is right, you are lazy and unproductive myself (I apologize for acting like this, but at this point I see you are citing bias sources. I am working on my PhD and I get frustrated seeing individuals just settling instead of pushing for something better, hard work doesn't take talent or ability). No, the rich are not just sitting on their money. Your thought process on that is asinine. If they were Just sitting on that money it would lose value. At worse they have it in banks who use that money to give out loans or invest in other ways to grow the economy. The rich don't just have the money stashed away under their beds. They are finding ways to make more which grows the economy. The time you referred me to was when you said the government was giving money to the rich. That is just giving money away which I don't agree with. Also during the Gilded Age we saw strong economic growth, and the two recession were brief compared to the one in 1929 and 2007 when massive spending, regulations, and taxes were put in place. Funny how that is never mentioned from the left, how the slowest recoveries occurred during times of higher spending and taxes and regulations. Wealth, the amount of assets one has. I, as a lower class person has more wealth than some rich guy from the 50s. I have more wealth than most from the 80s. We have access to smart phones, high speed internet, flat screen TVs, better cars, etc. The poor have more assets now than ever. That is from wealth creation that trickles down. What I am talking about with Keystone is jobs. You are claiming that we need to create jobs, jobs are easy to create, wealth is harder. Jobs are a small faction of the economy, wealth is what is important. The fact that use "common sense" in your recent argument shows you have little knowledge in what you are talking about. When you can't define your stance you use a term like "common sense" which is a type of genetic fallacy that makes it seem like that everyone should know something and there is no debate. I have shown you the tax issue already how higher taxes don't mean anything because flow of money isn't important, it is the creation of wealth. Zimbabwe has a lot of money flowing through their system, they also have 80% poverty. Germany students don't have more money, especially graduate students. $29,000 in loans isn't that high, that is like a car loan. The loan situation in this country is overdramatized. If people would pursue a degree that is worth something then it wouldn't matter. Also in the US we have athletes that attend college for free that wouldn't otherwise if it were for athletic scholarships. We have scholarships for those who are low income. The US has a lot of opportunity, more so than other countries. We have a situation where one can go to college and not have to work much during their college years. In Germany, even as a grad. student they have to work full time to pay bills. Not a strong system.
1
James Dagnan If Germany is so great than move there. I bet when you do you will be begging to come back. A country so much in fear that security guards in airports are armed with sub machine guns.
1
James Dagnan If there is no incentive for people to build better technology than it won't get created. It comes down to you can't consume what you don't produce. If I am not going to see the fruits of my labor than I simply won't work that hard. The government can't just snap their fingers and boom, an IPhone appears. There has to be a market for it and a company will work in creating it and offering it up for sale. In our country's history we were developing. Working conditions in the past looked terrible but they got better not because of regulations or the min. wage, but because of the development of our country. Technology got better, due to competition work environment and pay got better. Those who work in mines get paid very well now and in safer conditions than in the past. Same for those who work in factories. Issues such as child labor no longer exist not because of a law but because our society is developed. Children live with their parents until they are in their 20s. College enrollment is up, people are pursuing more skilled jobs. We are past the point of hard labor and going onto more innovation. The min. wage didn't improve the situation, all the min. wage did was raise unemployment especially amongst blacks. It was the natural progression of a developing country that did all this improvement. I don't belittle people who are worse off than me. I belittle people who are lazy. I am all for helping people out but if you are not going to contribute to society than forget it. I am not that well off by the way. I don't have it that great. What I do have I did work hard for and take pride in. More so than I can say about other people.
1
red244 We have the best healthcare quality. That is my mistake in wording. Is our system good? Well, it has problems much like other countries. Our main problem is cost. I really don't like comparing our system to other countries because those other countries are different. People try to compare us to other countries when you can't. Those other countries have completely different societies then us. The US is the most diverse country in the world. You are comparing use to Switzerland who has a population less than a lot of our states. It is a very poor comparison. Another problem with those rankings is that they pick arbitrary standards in ranking them. What is a healthy nation to you? If you look at productivity we are near the top in the world? That is a sign of a healthy nation. You criticize me for not giving any sources but the one you give is weak to the point it is meaningless. The US has the best quality in the world by what we offer. We have problems but so do other countries. Copying other country's system that wont' work for us and has problems is not the approach to take.
1
red244 I have read the reference, it is weak. It leaves out other factors and tries to make a one to one connection with the variables they list completely to healthcare. The US is in the 10 ten in obesity rates for example. That is a societal issues, not a healthcare one. But that does play a role in say, for example, our slightly lower (not much) life expectancy.
1
In some ways you are right. I was waiting in a car outside of Walmart, a place where generally poor people shop. Someone got their items, loaded the car, and threw the cart to the curve. They didn't take it to the cart spot or walk it to the curve but threw it. Pure laziness. They are people who are poor for a reason.
1