all of us our investment how safe we think our money is or is not each day this week, we're looking at markets will look at that. liz: money with melissa is next. melissa: i'm melissa francis and here a what is money tonight. who will take over the fed now? larry summers is out. who should be in at the next fed chief? renowned economist john taylor joins us exclusive. he is my answer but i don't get to vote. so there you two go. plus does money buy happiness? the age-old question is answered. but it turns over every assumption you had upside down. we're seting a all-star panel lose on this big money talker. you will love that one. "who made money today?" she will make $310,000 a night for two years. stay tuned and to find out who it is. even when they say it's not, it is always about money.

melissa: straight off the top tonight, an excsive interview with my personal choice for who should be the next fed chair, reknowned economist john taylor. news that larry summers has withdrawn his name for consideration of the job led to a nice rally in the markets. everyone is looking ahead to try to predict whether the next fed chief will be vice-chair janet yellen or not. hear to weigh in what went down and what we're in store for. mere is stanford professor, john taylor himself, author of the five keys to prosperity. great to have you back on the show. >> good to be here. melissa: what did you think when you heard the news when, you heard larry summers was withdrawing his name? >> i was surprised but it looked like it was moving that way in the last few days. a number of democratic senators indicated resistance to him. that was going to make it hard.

i think he read the tea leaves and the white house read the tea leaves and decided best not to push it. melissa: what do you think really went down? whenever somebody submit as letter that they're withdrawing their name from consideration, it is like, saying i want to spend more time with my kids. i'm sure they love their kids but it's a little suspect. what do you think happened? >> he just saw it would be unlikely or tough at least, would be quite disruptive to the hearings. the votes were moving against him in the senate. several democrats, as many as four on the banking committee indicated reservations. and that would mean they would have to get quite a few republicans which would be tough. and so i think they just calculated this was, had a low probability and didn't need that at this point. went ahead and he withdrew. of course the white house must have known that as he did. >> it yeah, absolutely. i want to play for you janet yellen, comes out as the frontrunner again it seems although it seems we can never sort of commit to her being a

real choice. i want to say to you what elizabeth warren had to say about that and ask y what you think about her as the choice on the other side. let's listen. >> janet has terrific experience and i think he shoes good judgment. she's done, she is a consensus builder and that's a very good thing for someone at the fed. melissa: do you agree with that, john? >> i agree with that. she's someone you can get alongwith. one of the things i've been quite critical of the fed and some of the actions that janet yellen has taken of the you can talk to her and discuss it. i think that, ultimately she wants to get back to i think a more sensible policy she is going to do that. she knows where she wants to know. i quarrel with how fast she should do it but i agree with that basically. >> say she wants to get back to a more sensible policy. what does that mean mean? i feel like knowing your school of economic thought i would think you and janet disagree a lot what should be done right

now? >> we do disagree, no question bit. the watch quantity -- quantitative easing i don't think has been very effective. i think a lot of extraordinary interventions since the crisis, 2009, 10, 11, 12, have not been helpful. i think some of the actions taken before the crisis weren't helpful. a lot of disagreement there. on the other hand she always indicated she would like to get back to rules-based policy i think that's correct. she didn't think it is time yet. i disagree with that. but at least there is a sense where you want to go. i think that is important. melissa: do you think people read her as looser with monetary policy than ben bernanke? do you think she is more dovish than he is? >> she may be. the word dovish is very confusing. think she basically has been supportive of bernanke and i'm not positive about a lost policies. that is one of the reasons we disagree. i wouldn't say it is more dovish. i would say ultimately, and i

say this again, she thought there is good reasons to deviate from it rules-based policy i disagree with those reasons. i wouldn't say it is dovish. basically a deviation from better policy and i think she wants to get back there at some point. melissa: what do you think about the idea, before larry summers said that he was withdrawing his name from consideration there has sort of been this little rumbling about you know, ben bernanke didn't really want to leave. president obama basically fired him on television in an interview with charlie rose. that there is some sort after riff between the two, but that market would be happy if ben bernanke stuck around and he might be willing to do it? do you think there is any truth to that narrative? what would that mean for the market and the economy? >> yeah. i think he did consider it early but i think the president indicated pretty clearly he wanted to go in a different direction. he has been there eight years. there is a sense the president would like to have his own person.

i don't know that for sure. but i think at this point there is such an indication he wants to move in a different direction. i think what the market appreciated the removal of a lot of uncertainty about larry summers. he would have been quite different, hard to read. you're seeing positive reaction to removal of uncertainty. people like janet yellen on the list will not be that much different. market ultimately likes that. i hope they make changes they need to do. melissa: other names out there floated. don kohn, that comes to the fore for whatever reason because everyone likes to speculate or they don't think really janet yellen will get it. as soon as larry summers name went away don kohn's came in stronger and you heard timothy geithner floated in as well. do you think those are real possibilities those two? >> they're possibilities. i think janet is the frontrunner, but i think those are possibilities. we're in normal scuttlebutt

about new fed chairman. with leiry removed, there is discussion who is in first place. don kohn has beenice chairman in the past. been at the fed for a long time. a natural person. tim geithner was president of new york fed for a while and treasury secretary. so it is quite natural they would be being discussed. i think most of that is just press speculation. the president did mention don kohn. so that is, someone to bring up obviously for that reason but the rest is pretty much speculation. melissa: before i let you go who do you think would be the best and who do you think is going to get it? >> i think the best person who makes it clear that they want to get back to behindkind of policy that worked so well in work the in '80s and '90s and do it in credible way. we'll see who is able to do that i've been positive what i said a few minutes ago about janet yellen but don kohn, don kohn's there too but the main

thing get back to a policy that works. i'm critical of what's happened. i was a positive supporter of the fed in the '80s and '90s. i'm very concerned what they have been doing recently. the person who gets us back there in the most sensible way is the person i hope president obama appoints. melissa: do you think they're doin damage? that we left the policies too long and it is detrimental or diminishing returns? >> it has moved to the detrimental side. you think about quantitative easing, number three was put in the end of last year. the interest rate was 1.7 and now it is 2.9. how can you claim that as a positive. there is a lot of thing to question about the policy. everything considered, i think it has been a negative and that's why i think it is so important to get back to policies that we saw worked in the past and they will work when we get back to them in the future. melissa: john taylor, thank you so much. my vote for the fed if i had one, but unfortunately this is my only pulpit here.

there you can see. would i make you fed chair but no one listens to me. there you go, for now, thank you for coming on. i hope you come back soon. >> thank you, melissa. melissa: next on "money," another day, another big hit to jpmorgan. this one at least, $750 million in fines over the "london whale" former fdic chair sheila bair whether it is enough to set an example. plus what really happened behind the scenes that caused larry summers to bow out as the next fed chief? hmmm. we have all the news on wall street and the scoop. more money straight ahead. ♪

melissa: big news about jpmorgan developing and a high-profile victory for the sec. not only is the bank going to be hit for at least $750 million in fines for the "london whale" debacle, it will report admitting culpability. forcing companies to admit wrongdoing as part after settlement is part after major push by sec chairman mary jo

white and not something that regularly occurs. here to weigh in with her expert opinion former fdic share, sheila bair. happy to have you back. >> happy to be here. melissa: let's get right to it. what is your reaction to the jpmorgan news and is it important that firms admit some sort of culpability or wrongdoing rather than just paying a fine? >> speaking in policy terms, yes, i think this is a positive development. i can commend mary jo white to have enforcement policy that enforces accountability. i think that is a good thing, a, slightly. melissa: it is why us a same, and i can sell from their statements in the past. they should have had oversight. they're not admitting fraud or serious wrongdoing. we were negligent and we should have had closer eye on the guys and here is the fine we're paying. why is that different from paying the fine? >> because it's a public expression of accountability.

it can lead to perhaps other legal accountability. i'm not familiar with the particular facts and circumstances there in terms of whether there could be further shareholder actions brought but i do think this is, you know, something that speaks to a broader problem with enforcement policy is that, there's so much, you know i think, one of the things "london whale" is something that gift that keeps on giving for jpmorgan and jamie dimon. they can't get themselves out of it. it is endemic after larger policy issue even with banks with good management, they're too big to manage. they're too complex to manage. that is an overall policy discussion we haven't had enough of in washington. i don't think we've dealt with it meaningfully. not justt jpmorgan chase. i question if they're manageable by anyone. melissa: it seems we've seen a shift lately, especially in the case of jpmorgan. they're getting out of the

physical commodity business. >> right, right. melissa: they set aside $2 billion for litigation for things like this. they know it is coming down the road. they say they're getting rid of their non-car assets. the student loan business was latest thing they said they're getting out of. >> right. melissa: it does feel like they have been taken to task over and over again lately and as a result they are getting smaller. would you agree? >> well, they have taken some positive steps definitely and i think the good news about the "london whale" it was, shareholder equity could absorb the losses and they were substantial and it was clearly a wake-up call to the management and board to tighten up risk management controls so i think that was a positive thing so yes there have been significant improvements but i still think the larger issue is whether these very large complex institutions with multiple business lines, commercial banking, derivatives market making, traditional investment banking, securities market making, are very different skillsets. can they be effectively managed at the top of the house which is

how they try to operate now? the regulators force them to simplify the legal structures, organize them along business lines and have intermediate management to have a better handle what is going on between the discrete business coonents. that would get a lot more shareholder information in terms of how each business line is actually performing. now it is kind of a big blob. it is very difficult to tell. again i think this is problematic, indicative of a larger problem with our approach to regulating these very large behemoths is that centrally-managed they're just too big and too comely kateed to do effectively. melissa: even still you think jpmorgan needs to be broken down further from where it is. >> i think legal structure, all of them. this isn't just jpmorgan chase. i would have interimmediate boards that specialize in understand commercial banking, understand the derivatives market, understand stand traditional investment banking. i think those are very different skillsets, very diffent business models and they would benefit greatly from

management's focus with that, kind of background, expertise in those different areas. that is true for all of them, not just jpmorgan chase. >> i want to turn to you the idea we're five years, five-year anniversary of the start of the financial crisis really. are we better off than you thought we would be at this point? or are we worse off than you thought we would be? >> we're worse off. i think certainly the system is safer than it was prior to the crisis. that is not, seting a high baseline. we had a pretty fragile system as we saw when lehman failed. so we had made progress but not nearly enough. again these large financial conglomerates are too complicated to manage effectively. they operate with too much leverage. they into evidence higher capital. they rely too much on short-term funding which dries up very quickly if you get into a downturn. more of the derivatives market needs to go into central clearing. progress has been made. we have capital levels up a bit, thanks to the cftc and

gary gensler. we have a good chunk of derivatives market in centralized clearing. so much more needs to be done. i worry about it, apropos with your conversation with john taylor, tapering there will be market volatility with this tapering. it will create some challenges i think for large financial institutions and we still have a fragile financial system. i think that is very unfortunate. i agree with john. we need to get out of this. it needs to be gradual and controlled and but we need to get out of it. it will be hard. the system is still fragile and i worry about thible to cope with it. melissa: sheila bair, thanks for your insight. come back soon. >> thanks. melissa: time for the today's fuel gauge report. oil prices tanked for third straight sessions. crude settled down 1 1/2% at 106.59 a barrel. natural gas futures jumping today. tropical storm activity in the gulf of mexico and hot temperatures in the midwest heatings the rally. nat-gas settled at its highest

level since july 23rd. iran says it wants to resolve its nuclear dispute with the west. its top nuclear negotiator says the company is ready to expand cooperation with the u.n. nuclear watchdog. u.s. energy secretary responded to iran's apparent olive branch saying today, iran's word has to be followed by concrete action. next on "money," five years since lehman brothers collapsed. wall street won't touch dick fuld with a 10-foot pole but plenty of ceos, you know, they have tanked companies only to get a great new job. what does makinguld so different? it is all the word on wall street. we have got all the details. plus, does money buy happenness? a new study lifts all the old assumptions on their head. we've got an all-star panel ready to sound off over today's big money talker. stick around. do you ever have too much money? do you ever have too much money? ♪

this man is about to be the millionth customer. do you ever have too much money? ♪ would you mind if i go ahead of you? instead we had someone go ahead of him and win fiy thousand dollars. congratulations you are our one millionth customer. nobody likes to miss out. that's why ally treats all their customers the same. whether you're the first or the millionth. if your bank doesn't think you're special anymore, you need an ally. ally bank. your money needs an ally.

everybody has a dream. mine was to see the ocean. and with a little help... i made it.

♪ melissa: so with this milestone after the financial crisis some are calling ex-lehman brothers ceo dick fuld, a wall street pariah. he drove the giant investment bank into the ground and five years later, still can't find a job. behind the scenes with about it all the word on wall street today. we have the "wall street journal's" spencer jacob here with the inside scoop. spencer, thanks for coming back as always. what makes him different? you know, to be fair we've seen a lot of people trash companies and then they come out and they somehow get another great job. you're like wait? oh, it was that company, it was an impossible situation. we're all waiting to see what for example, ron johnson does next but i get he gets a good

gig. what makes dick fuld different? >> funny, right? melissa: yeah. >> america is the land of second chances. anthony weiner got a second chance until he messed it up. melissa: until he proved to us he need ad third and fourth chance because he couldn't stop what he was doing. >> five or 10 years he will make a comeback. people in the financial sphere. i think there are two differences with dick fuld. you have people who say blew up a hedge fund and come back and have, they even, some people do it twice and get a third chance. john meriweather left solomon brothers after bond trading scandal. melissa: right. >> he came back at ltcm, almost brought down the world financial system, whoops. melissa: long-term capital management. another disaster. >> he is a smart guy who surrounds himself with smart people. dick fuld doesn't know how to do anything more. he is too far removed from the career out there to get to rise in his position.

he is so radioactive -- melissa: right. >> he will not big in business for any new firm t would be such a joke to have him on the letterhead. it is too far gone. i heard he gave a speech soon after the whole lehman collapse and tried to, you know, inject a little humor, and i'm the most hated man in america. no one laughed. melissa: they were just like, that is sort of a statement. even if you look at contemporaries, look at john thain, ceo of merrill lynch. of course, same time, similar situation. i wonder if the difference with dick fuld was, i remember at the time, when he kept going on tv and reassuring people that he had it under control. and then later when we replayed all the sound bites and we went back and looked at it was he delusional and didn't understand how out of control it was or was he lieing? i mean is that one of the differences? we really watched him come out and talk about how everything was okay and they were well-capitalized and it wasn't a again on tv and clips were there

to replay. you say one way or the other he either wasn't telling the truth or he didn't understand the truth? >> there is the possibility that lehman, don't want to say only could have been a bear stearns, right? bear stearns was almost a cop pleat loss but it didn't destablize the financial system way lehman did and didn't go to zero the way lehman did. melissa: right. >> he had a lot of opportunities, the perception the way history has been written his arrogance in not, you know, not basically accepting a big loss for shareholders, not admitting how bad things were. melissa: yeah. >> and so a lot of blame goes to him. so there's a real reason why, why he's tarred with that brush. melissa: real quick because we're out of time, what do you think happened with larry summer? i said before when you read that thing it is like i want to snd some more time with my kids? what really happened? did the president say it was over for you? >> i think so. they float ad trial balloon. it came out a few weeks ago. a lot of people in the president's own party -- melissa: took an ak-47 to

that -- >> we don't want this guy. it is ironic, yellen is more dovish candidate. it is interesting, i think the paradox here and some people close to the fed, told me yellen getting job, for example, short term may be more negative for the bond market. she is already o board. already part of the tapering. >> right. >> she is already doing it. he may have tried to counter that perception. melissa: that's a great point, spencer. thanks so much. up next, money does buy happenness but you won't believe for whom. a new study reveals where it makes all the difference. we have a all-star panel to make it rain on this "money" talker. "who made money today?" >> she will make 300 grand a night just to take the stage in sin city. that is too big of a hint. "piles of money" up ahead. ♪

♪ melissa: no matter what time it

is, "money" is always on the move. shares of pandora taking a hit after hours. the company does not expected subscriber growth rate from the first half of the fiscal year to continue. subscriber growth is changing his tune. andorra is filing to offer 14 million new shares of stocks. already 176 million outstanding. just like the after hours. investors have probably not that upset. shares up 150%. outtake that. forget what you think you know. more "money" is not always mean more problems, and it can buy you happiness. a new study reveals that rich people will -- rich people are happier. that and some of the other results caused quite a stir. here in our own unscientific study of whether not money really does buy you happiness, investment adviser stock martin, and charles. great to have you on the show.

we will start with the easy one. it should not be a total shocker. in households making 75,000 year more 66 percent gave their lives in eight or better. only 36 percent of those and households making less than $30,000 or happy. what do you think? >> i was not shocked. i think of all of the numbers and all the different variables, the one that i guess was most disheartening was the group 50- 64. melissa: right to that. that is okay. you're right. you should go with that. that was the most interesting part. the people that were most miserable 350-64. if you're watching out there to meet apparently you are suicidal. brought a, what do you make of that? >> that time. it is full of banks. they are nervous, wondering if i am going to retire, about to get laid off from my job because i am hire, if i am going to retire

what is next? what is happening with my kids. it may be having to find their college, but i have to hang on to this job. that time is full of worry for people. melissa: were you surprised? the people from 50-64 are the most miserable. at the same time those over 65 were the happiest. >> bingo. that's it. everybody should be turning 65, and we will make it. it is interesting. to appoint a man is probably all the things that she mentioned. everyone from 50-64, so much pressure. isn't that really what we're talking about? it may not buy you happiness, but it buys you comfort. the pressure we put on ourselves ways us down. that is what you are seeing and what charles pointed out because that demographic eventually flips. melissa: what do you think about that. totally miserable. suddenly they are the happiest

care about there. >> it's kind of feels like to cross the finish line. i made it. it's like the day after your dentist appointment. you know, leading up to it you are full of banks. as soon as it is over it is like and i made it. by the way, this time it is especially true. a group that has so much pressure on them. we just went through the financial meltdown. they have even more anxiety. they took a big step backwards. do they have that window of opportunity to make it up? they should be anxious. melissa: this assumes a lot. to mean that everyone is retiring and 65 which i thought was one of the things that we gave up on. and it kind of a sims, you know, that you don't want to work after 65. there are people who want to stay in the game. are you racing to that 65 and then you're going to shut it all down and get on about and had to the bahamas. >> he's already done that. >> what you talking about? and doing that tomorrow. dying to get to 65.

the other thing, think about the social safety nets that kick in. veronica was getting something. people may be closer. worried about social security. i have clients that are constantly worried about medicare providers. you have to think, there i as social safety net aspect that kicks in that might make people feel a little better. melissa: i was surprised that there was little difference in men and women. there was no difference. it did not even differentiate if you were the one working or if it was your spouse. it was the same. was that surprising? >> i was surprised they have a much longer time frame to plan. a lot of them become when know it -- wasn't a divorced. we have to have a lot more money chances are they have been in the workforce a lot less time.

they have more things to worry about, so that is interesting. melissa: another thing that i thought was shocking. what a difference education made. two-thirds of those with advanced degrees regardless of income gave their lives in eight or greater. we are so down on the college debt problem. apparently if you go to graduate school you're happy no matter what. how is that possible? >> so many people out there, and both sides of the aisle. every timeou get the data it is just not economically. being a person who loves knowledge, loves to learn, it adds something to your life. it is an intangible, but it is a great intangible. >> i was not so much because i think education can open up opportunities for you. some may be a more educated other things you pursue, reading, broaden your rise in which helps your perspective as well. melissa: what is your bottom line? did you walk away om this?

because we label it as does money by you happiness. a lot of conflicting things. what is your final take away? >> i think it buys you comfort, things to fall back on. like my boy biggie smalls, melissa, more money, more problems. the more money you have, the more you can lose. melissa: i don't know. >> it buys you happiness. it does not dismiss happiness, but i will go back a little further than scott. pearled bailey says she has been rich and she has been poor and rich as a whole lot better. melissa: it does not buy you good health or relationships, but maybe it does because you can afford better doctors and are not fighting with your husband of a town about money. i think maybe it does by you happiness. it will be unpopular. bellamy on this one. >> a little bit of both. can help your relatiohip. for the long term there has to be something a little bit more there.

melissa: it does not buy you happiness, but it sure helps. thank you so much. great job. next on "money," the words carnival cruise and great do not usually go together. is this what it has come down to? paying people to take a vacation my favorite marketing grew rule is here with all of the details. at the end of the day it's all about "money" and happiness. ♪

♪ melissa: call it a great vacation guarantee, a string of nightmares. basically paying guests to set sail. interested? a pretty good deal. if you do not like it within the first 24 hours tell the crew and you get back 110 percent refund.

they're paying you to be on the cruise. where are we going? here now is my favorite marketing master. i don't know. you know me. i am wary. even with the 110%. it is peaking my interest. >> really? at that they could not get you on your cruise. >> i did not say was going to do it. i was saying that it is speaking my interest. it seems like it is too easy. within the first 24 hours is sick and i don't like it. it was not a lot. they don't get a helicopter and throw you the hell off the boat. they give you your money back. >> i went on line and let it up. it says guest services will get you off the boat as quickly as possible. maybe we need to look at it from the other side. it is not that they are worried that you will try it out. maybe this is a buzz cut about this.

they don't want that debbie down as on the ship. if you're going to wind, be a but still, they want you out of there. melissa: this seems like this could be a pretty big loser down the road. say is still would be tough. a whole bunch of people on there who want their money back. they could game the system and stay on. where does that put them? >> there is not much to gain. you have to complain with in the first 24 hours. you are not stealing a cruise. they give you 110%. you're not getting a lot of money. if you have a bad crews you probably won't do it again. would you need to understand is how they control their inventory verses what they charge for crews. here is the trick. any ship that leave us with an empty cabin, that cabin can never be sold again. it is gone. it is like an airplane that takes off. you can never sell it. it really does not cost them

anything to bring people like you naysayers, if youill on the ship. if you don't like it there will get you off. if you do like it or you just don't want tose really what is not to like it will keep your money. melissa: some of the photos i've seen, there is something to complain about. here is the other thing. coming into this age of anyone can return anything. this is the way to keep customers happy. a lot of stores have travel down this road. maybe putting the brakes. but you look get someone like rei, a huge article. they have had this policy forever. you can return just about anything. some of the returns have been really impressive. a customer recently returned a pair of women's sandals that were totally worn down. her complaint was that they were not sexy enough. someone else returned a 9-year old backpack he had taken to the tallest mountain in they

yosemite national park for hundreds of miles. his complaint was it is getting old and dirty and i don't like it anymore. they gave him a new backpack which cost less. he also returned the new backpack because there was another one out. can you not go too far? >> of course you can. lots of companies. very, very liberal return policies. they don't even sell tires. melissa: i don't know about that one. they have a lot of people that come in and buy a dress and wearing an incentive right back and say this as part of our customer service. i don't know. that is expensive. >> once again, it is yield management. after look at how much business it brings and verses what it costs you. over utilizing the expenses. the person you did see a similar

plan pays a deductible and in goes to the doctor's office every single day. look at it from a ratio point of view. think how many electronics you bought and paid extra for that extra warranty in the store. think how many you have returned my guess is you bought a lot and returned probably nine. if you look at the ratio, these things make money. melissa: would you tell to the business person out there watching is tryg to decide how liberal they should be? >> it depends on the relationship they have with their customers. also depends on pricing. a store like patagonia or nordstrom is not the low-cost leader. costa to expect anything and they go for a much lower price. generally consumers have to decide what they want. they want the best service and most liberal return policies or the lowest prices all the time. you don't stand to get both. you get one of the other. in the case of carnival there is

the third thing which is they have lost the confidence of their customer. as you said earlier, they have to buy a pack. it is always a trade-off. melissa: i want everything. thank you so much for coming on. appreciate it. next up, one fast food company answering the demands for $15 an hour. how is it serving of wages that mcdonald's cannot? it is all in "spare change." you can never have too much "money". ♪

♪

melissa: you know what time it is. it's time for "spare change." about the minimum wage. while the debate wages on one fast food restaurant is stepping up. it is raising starting salaries to what some consider an outlandish $15 an hour minimum. how are they able to do this? while other fast-food giants face such a hike it would be a recipe for disaster. the owner joins me now. >> how are you. melissa: i'm terrific. walk me through your cost structure. where are you cutting back? >> it is not that we are really cutting back. the emphasis in our model is on our crew. that makes said between 70 and 75 pernt of our cost.

we're looking at the back end. we are just sort of, again, not going into the high rent areas. really looking a structural costs, the brick and mortar, the utilities, that type of thing. that is where we're being mindful. melissa: are you in locations where rent is lower? >> i don't want to say that. al, low rent district. then all of our neighbors are late, wait, what? melissa: you could potentially be in and even more expensive location, but it would not be worth it. that is up people normally talk about things that are less expensive. >> we look at working class. working class is not necessarily go to trendy. trending may come to working-class if we are there and get and we surf value. so we don't necessarily have to be right at first and main, so

to speak. you know, we are careful about where we are selecting. bear careful about where we have selected our locations. as we move forward to grow we will be carefuln selecting locations. melissa: you do not chase the rinceau the state. >> that is exactly right. melissa: still a little suspicious. not suspicious, curious. i should frame that differently. it looks like your prices are not higher. birders a $3. $5. pretty standard. do you have your employees? >> well, we do not necessarily -- probably fewer employees and a larger box in relationship to a larger box, i should say. basically we have enough to run our crew. we have ed 1200 square-foot space. it is carried out, so we do not

have dining service and that type of thing. will we do have is a career that is focused upon the food, prepping the food, cooking the food, keeping all of that consistent. first and foremost you want everybody greeted with a smile. that is what we pay for. our people are not numbers. melissa: you have fewer people who are probably better, more qualified, happier. they are happier with you because you're paying them more. you feel like this is a model that could be duplicated at mcdonald's? >> i cannot answer for mcdonald's, but i would like to think so. sure. why not. it is working for ross. melissa: maybe their products -- he say that you have people calling in taking orders. maybe the business model works for them. they pay less because they expect less. your model works for you and

there's works for them. i you happy that's your choice? >> i'm happy as much choice. ♪ you think it should be mandated? >> that is tough. i would say no. i don't know if it should be mandated. what we're doing is trying to -- i would be hard pressed. if we went into it at a different angle i would be hard-pressed have somebody telling me that the rate has to be $15 an hour because there are a lot of smaller companies out there that i don't know if they could handle it like we are. i cannot answer for them. that is a very, very good question. >> but it is working for you, and we congratulate you on that. melissa: i'm starting now. thank you so much. >> when are you coming to fix this? melissa: and ghandi on a plane right now. thank you. >> okay. thank you for having me on. melissa: up next, who may "money" today.

we will have the answer right after this. you can never have too much "money."

>> whether on wall street or main street who is who made money today, anybody that owns boeing, a deal with south korea government. that project valued $7.6 billion. >> hitting all-time high. >> hit her baby, one more time, britney spears making mountains of money, signing a two year contract to perform at las vegas planet hollywood, making $15 million a year to make 48 shows, that is 310 grand a night, no word on whether she gets a bonus if she does not

lip-sync. i'll see you back here tomorrow, the willis report is coming up next. the following is a paid advertisement for starvista entertainment and time life's music collection. ♪ chances are 'cause i wear a silly grin ♪ there are artists we'll always remember... ♪ mona lisa, mona lisa ♪ men have named you there are beautiful songs, words and memories that will always touch our hearts... ♪ it's impossible ♪ to tell the sun to leave the sky ♪ ♪ it's just impossible this is the music of your life. ♪ she wore blue velvet