Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Credit: Moral Issues (merged)

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Postby Ludi » Mon 04 Jul 2005, 07:18:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('I_Like_Plants', ' ')I'm sure way back when there were husband and wife pairs where She was the queen of the gatherers and He was not God's gift to hunting, and that worked out OK too.


Don't forget that there have been HG cultures in which the women hunted also. :)
Ludi
 

Postby thorn » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 14:34:22

Claudia wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is the main point of The Two Income Trap. Parents are living these crazy lifestyles for one overwhelming reason: to get a spot in the bidding war to buy a house in a good school district, so their kids can get a reasonable start in life.


What about home schooling? Living in a cheaper place/location with "not so good" schools and being able to afford a house with 1 salary...Or both parents working part time.
User avatar
thorn
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue 29 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland

Postby Claudia » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 20:20:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thorn', 'W')hat about home schooling?


I'm not advocating one solution or another. Home school your kids if that's what you feel is the best choice. I'm just saying that this book presents data that shows -- pretty convincingly, to me -- that parents are going into debt and working all the time because they're trying to get better safety, health and education for their kids, not because of jacuzzis or pedicures or overall spendtrift instincts. They may be wrong in their chosen course. Maybe they'd be better off homesteading and homeschooling, rather than aiming for suburban schools and private college. But they don't think so, they think they're doing the best thing for their kids' futures.
Claudia
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu 26 May 2005, 03:00:00

Postby Roy » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 06:21:33

Good topic.

This is something my wife and I have been wrestling with since we had our first child in 2001.

When I met her, she was a law student with burgeoning student loans.

We were married after she graduated in 1998. So, when our first child was born, we were accustomed to her income and mine.

Being an engineer for the state of Louisiana, I don't make alot of money. In fact, my wife's salary is 2x mine. And her education debt was 6x mine.

So, for the last 4 years, she has worked, both part time and full time and we have had our kids in daycare.

They get sick more often, they bring home bad behaviors from "school" and they often pick up beliefs from the daycare system that I don't agree with. Daycare cost us $500 per month per kid.

Our plan was for her to stop working as an attorney (something she desparately wants to do--she has a problem with the ethics of her peers) as soon as we were debt free.

Once I "discovered" Peak Oil, about a year ago, we went on a crash debt reduction program. In that time, we've whittled her ed. debt down to half, paid off mine, paid off all our CC debt, and sold our house. Everything was going according to schedule. We had 13 more payments on her loans when everything changed.

She lost her full time job. One of the reasons given by her employer is that she was missing too much time due to sick kids. By May 1, she had used up her alloted 2 weeks of annual leave and her 1 week of sick leave. In addition, I have used all of the annual leave I've accrued this year(I get 14.5 hours/.month) for the same reason. I'm not allowed to use sick leave for sick children, though I have a large number of hours accumulated, something like 2 months worth. Sick kids require me to take vacation time. Once that's gone, I'm left with either lying (ie saying I'm sick when I'm not) or taking leave without pay, which screws up health insurance and retirement plans.

Thank goodness we got off the consumerism treadmill when we did. Our goal was to get our monthly expenses down to a level where we could live off my salary. When we started this plan, my entire check couldn't take care of our "bills", much less living expenses.

First thing we did was take our 2 kids out of daycare. Immediately, we were pocketing $1000 a month.

In the last month I've seen a dramatic change in my kids and my wife. Everyone is happier now. Much less stress. Personally, I hated the two income lifestyle. Getting the kids ready for daycare each day is a major PITA. Then, half the time when I dropped them off, they cried for me not to leave them. This is not a good way to start off your day, trust me. then, when one gets sick, they can't go to daycare, so somebody has to stay home. As I noted above, that works for a while, until both spouses' leave is exhausted.

My wife's stress levels have also decreased dramatically due to the change. Amazingly, my "sickly" children have been illness free since we stopped attending day care. Coincidence? Maybe.

My wife is now doing a little contract work (~10 hours/week) so we're not going under financially. We're close to being able to live off my income but not there yet. She likes the fact that she can work when she wishes, and I believe it does her good to have a little time to herself away from the house. Although the reduced income has put a wrench in our debt elimination plan, the tradeoff of a happier family is worth it.

We continue with getting rid of useless possessions (thanks EBAY) and minizing our expenses.

The biggest benefit of the one income family IMO, is the lower stress level enjoyed by all. Quality of life is not measured by possesions and 6 figure salaries, I have discovered. Too bad I didn't figure that out 10 years ago when I was feverishly running up debt and buying stupid crap I didn't need like home theatre systems, trick mountain bikes, hot rod speed parts, and massive amounts of music cds, among other things.

My 2 cents
Roy
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri 18 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Getting in touch with my Inner Redneck

Postby Rochester » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 08:34:47

My wife and I are just starting our family and we've been working it so that if needed she can afford to stop working or only work part time. By the time our first is born we'll only have our mortgage and student loan payments.

Current home projects include added insulation and a new coal stoker furnance next fall. We live in a walkable village suburb on the mass transit line. We both had strong "old world" grandparents that influenced us so we have a big garden and are pretty self sufficient. Hopefully the telco's wont be going broke too soon since that's where I work.

Most people truely mis-measure what quality of life is. I still probably spend too much, but energy consumption doesn't have to be a huge part of ones life if you organize it right.
User avatar
Rochester
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon 20 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Postby Leanan » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 09:57:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Amazingly, my "sickly" children have been illness free since we stopped attending day care. Coincidence? Maybe.


Not a coincidence. It's well established that small children are little germ factories. In fact, good epidemic models take into account whether the children are in school, since that is an important way flu and the like spread.

However, it's not necessarily good for the children to spared exposure to germs. Autoimmune diseases (asthma, allergies, lupus, IBS, arthritis, M.S., etc.) are becoming more and more common in developed nations like the U.S., but are almost unknown in the Third World. Why is this? Hygiene. We're too clean. Our immune systems don't learn what a real pathogen looks like, and turns on itself.

You can greatly reduce your children's chances of getting such diseases by keeping pets. Children who are raised with both a dog and a cat are much less likely to suffer autoimmune diseases that children raised pet-free.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Postby thorn » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 10:22:16

My wife stopped fulltime work just before our daughter was born. We had bought out enough from the DC area near where I work so we would have a small enough mortage for 1 salary. I'm about 14 miles from work. We have some land and grow a garden, trying to expand it if the critters do not eat most of it. :-D We have a simple energy efficient house that should keep the energy bills down once PO hits. Funny, we always knew that PO would hit, but I did not know it could be so soon. I thought it would be 20 years down the road.

The prices of land/housing have gone up so much that we would not be able to do it now. Not sure what our kids will be able to afford to buy in the future.

She wants to homeschool, I wonder if anyone here homeschools?

It gets harder every year, taxes, insurance, have gone up alot. Has anyone else notice how much food prices have gone up in the last year or so??!! 8O Helps to have a garden...
User avatar
thorn
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue 29 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland

Postby Roy » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 11:37:57

We are seriously considering the home schooling option due to the school situation here.

Public ed is a wreck in this parish (county) and forced bussing for "integtration" is the MO. The public school system here is over 80% african-american. The majority of the private ed is religious based and very pricey. I've posted on it in detail here

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic3277.html

Also, admissions to these private schools is competitive. Since we're not rich, I don't see much chance of my kids getting admitted, even if I could afford it.

My oldest just turned 4 so I have another year to figure something out.
Roy
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri 18 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Getting in touch with my Inner Redneck

Postby Claudia » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 12:11:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Roy', 'W')e are seriously considering the home schooling option due to the school situation here.


I have to say I would consider this too, given the options you described in the linked post.
Claudia
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu 26 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Postby uNkNowN ElEmEnt » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 13:16:19

I have long raged about the intolerance of corporations towards families. One of the biggest reasons daycares are germ factories is because when kids are sick most parents will take them anyways (because their employers penalize those who have to take time off for sick kids) thereby making more kids in the daycare ill.

Its a typical backward thought process that results from the concept that kids do not have value until they are consumers. I hate it. I got laid off from a job because one of my daughters got pneumonia twice in one spring. (quite possibly becuase I rushed back to work after a week off and the same illness recurred - who knows!)

I recently had to start home schooling my 11 year old son 1/4 into the school year. It can be a lot of work, you have to be amazingly consistent and organized but there are some good programs out there. Lots of the better ones again have a religious slant.

the best way to approach it is to contact your school district and get them to send you copies of the learning outcomes for the grade your child is going into. This will give you the basis for choosing what programs and workbooks you choose for your kid. The join a homeschooling group, they are invaluable and can give you tons of inside info and tips.

they also give you are resource for gym or playdates to make sure your kids get the necessary socialization.

believe it or not Harvard saves 10% of their enrollment #'s for homeschooled kids.
User avatar
uNkNowN ElEmEnt
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2587
Joined: Sat 04 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: perpetual state of exhaustion

Postby I_Like_Plants » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 18:47:54

Public schools in the US are mainly about preventing education.

Forced busing, taking happy, healthy, well-adjusted kids who are doing well academically and forcing them to ride an hour or two each way into schools where crime is rampant, disease, violence, etc. Homeschooling is the only way to survive for the people who are (a) decent and (b) non-rich.

Hate to say it folks but this issue alone is enough to swing the next election to the Repubs again, because the dems just don't understand things like this - their kids are doing fine in the elite private schools they put them in, and they don't see any problem. So they're all for busing your kids into the inner city.
I_Like_Plants
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3839
Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ

Postby jaws » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 19:56:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('I_Like_Plants', 'P')ublic schools in the US are mainly about preventing education.

Forced busing, taking happy, healthy, well-adjusted kids who are doing well academically and forcing them to ride an hour or two each way into schools where crime is rampant, disease, violence, etc. Homeschooling is the only way to survive for the people who are (a) decent and (b) non-rich.

Hate to say it folks but this issue alone is enough to swing the next election to the Repubs again, because the dems just don't understand things like this - their kids are doing fine in the elite private schools they put them in, and they don't see any problem. So they're all for busing your kids into the inner city.
Of course this argument is a great way to dodge the real, actual root problem. The inner city schools are for second-class citizens.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Postby jmacdaddio » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 22:04:28

I thought forced bussing was on the wane after the 1980s ... it's shocking to see it's alive and well.

The main problem with US schools is that they're generally funded by local property tax revenues. If the local area is a ghetto or trailer park, the schools are destined to be horrible. Wealthier towns have better schools, which drives up property values, which adds to the wealth and improves the schools, keeping the loop intact.

In NJ the inner-city districts get about the same funding as suburban districts thanks to federal and state supports. The money ends up going down the drain, usually to a school board's brother's company who gets the "renovation" contract or other kickback schemes.
User avatar
jmacdaddio
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00

Postby linlithgowoil » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 07:02:51

my wife and i have 2 young boys, one is just over 2 and one is just over 1 yr old. I work full time in Edinburgh, 13.5miles from home and i leave in the morning at about 8.15am and get home at about 6pm usually.

We do OK on my income of £15,700 per year (rising to £23,000 per year at end august when im qualified), but we certainly cant really afford expensive luxuries, and we don't want them either.

Our current monthly expenses is covered by our income - just. We have nothing left at the end of the month and no savings.

The problem we have is our debt. Its slowly reducing, but we pay about £430 a month in debt repayments. We won't be debt free till end of 2010, which is just as good as saying 'never' - given PO is hitting now.

My wife loves being at home with the children and i think everyone should live that way. I've no idea why women wanted to go out to work 40 hours a week - can any woman clear that up? I thought you all had it pretty sweet not working, getting everything bought for you and only having to worry about doing housework and looking after children. Sounds great to me.

2 income families have ruined it for everyone. Children are delinquent little brats, the prices of housing etc. have skyrocketed etc. etc.
User avatar
linlithgowoil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon 20 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Scotland

Postby nocar » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 09:45:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I've no idea why women wanted to go out to work 40 hours a week - can any woman clear that up? I thought you all had it pretty sweet not working, getting everything bought for you and only having to worry about doing housework and looking after children. Sounds great to me.


I'll try:
1. Lots of women find housework terrible boring, and lonely. And it is hard work, not something "only having to worry about". I suggest you read Anne Oakley: The sociology of housework, 1974.

2. It is terrible degrading to have to ask your husband for money to spend.

3. If happy housewife's hubby a few years on fall in love with a less boring type than his housewife, e.g. some sparkling creative young thing at his office, leftover housewife has no marketable skills, becomes very bitter and gets stuck at the worst jobs.

Part time, six hours/day work for all, has been on the agenda of women's organisations for about 30 years in Sweden. That would create both time for good family life and gender equality. But it has always been ended with "well, a reform to do in the future, when the economy allows it" (Although some legalities have come out of the work for that: if you have children under 12 you have the legal right to work 30 hrs/w, but have to cut your income too. Quite a number of women take advantage, few men - why?). Right now only the Green Party is pushing for reducing work hours.

nocar
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Postby thorn » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 10:16:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nocar', '
')Part time, six hours/day work for all, has been on the agenda of women's organisations for about 30 years in Sweden. That would create both time for good family life and gender equality. But it has always been ended with "well, a reform to do in the future, when the economy allows it" (Although some legalities have come out of the work for that: if you have children under 12 you have the legal right to work 30 hrs/w, but have to cut your income too. Quite a number of women take advantage, few men - why?). Right now only the Green Party is pushing for reducing work hours.

nocar


There are some groups in the US that are trying to get more leave and time for workers. I guess when peak oil hits it may change, but will it be more hours or less??


==========================================
As Demands on Workers Grow, Groups Push for Paid Family and Sick Leave

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Published: March 6, 2005

Tanya Frazier, the office manager of a 50-person payroll management company in Burbank, Calif., received a call last September from the elementary school her daughter attends, telling her to pick up her flu-stricken 9-year-old.

But when she stayed home from work the next day to care for her daughter, she was fired.

Just why is a matter of dispute. Ms. Frazier said she was shocked, because she had missed work only a handful of days that year. Her boss, Jerry Schwartz, said in an interview that he was tired of her taking so many days off.

Now Ms. Frazier's case and others like it are being used by a Seattle-based coalition known as Take Back Your Time and various advocacy groups to argue for more paid time off for American workers. Saying that too many workers feel overstressed by demands on their time, the groups are calling for a broad shift in attitudes that would allow Americans to devote more time to their families, to spirituality and to their communities.

Take Back Your Time and its allies are seeking legislation in 21 states to give workers paid sick days or paid family leave to take care of infants or seriously ill family members. In Washington State recently, the group earned a preliminary victory when committees in the House and Senate passed a bill calling for five weeks' paid family leave for workers, which would be financed by having workers pay a tax of two cents per hour worked, about $40 a year.

Take Back Your Time is optimistic about a victory in Washington State, but it is less confident about winning on paid family leave in many other states. If the group makes progress in several states, its leaders say they plan to begin pushing state legislatures to guarantee workers three weeks of paid vacation each year.

Women's groups are also promoting paid family leave and paid sick time. Spurred by the National Partnership for Women and Families and by 9 to 5, the National Association of Working Women, several dozen Democratic members of Congress are planning to introduce a bill this month that would guarantee workers seven paid days off each year for when they or their children are ill.

"A lot of people are shocked when they hear that almost half the work force doesn't have paid sick days," said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families. "There's something about paid sick leave that's almost as American as baseball and apple pie."

The groups argue that these are rare issues that can unite liberals and conservatives: those on the left interested in better working conditions and those on the right who want to promote family values.

"These are issues that cross party lines," said John de Graaf, national coordinator of Take Back Your Time, a left-leaning coalition of public health specialists, family and women's groups, environmentalists, union members and church groups. "There's a lot of potential Republican interest. This is completely about family values. People need time to have strong marriages, strong families and strong communities. When people don't have enough time, families can break down."

Liberals and conservatives are finding that they share common ground when it comes to changing attitudes on issues like having parents spend more time with their children. But for liberals, earning conservatives' support for legislation mandating vacations or paid sick days is not easy, making the battle in Congress and in many states an uphill struggle. Conservatives' corporate allies generally oppose such proposals. "Our members are decidedly against mandates from the federal government," said Patrick Lyden, a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business.

Catherine H. Myers, executive director of the Family and Home Network, based in Virginia, said a preferable solution, instead of enacting mandates, would be for parents to quit or to reduce their paid employment to spend more time caring for their children. "When we consider what our children really need, how can we afford not to give them our time?" Ms. Myers said.

The Bush administration and many conservatives favor a different approach to helping overstretched workers: a bill on comp time that has failed in the past two sessions of Congress. Under current law, most employees who work more than 40 hours a week must be paid time and a half, but under the proposal, an employee who works more than 40 hours in one week could choose between overtime and comp time.

Many Democrats and labor unions oppose the bill, saying that it would cut workers' wages by pressuring them to give up paid overtime and that it would give managers too much control over when employees take comp time.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, American workers put in 1,792 hours on average in 2003 - three full-time weeks more than British workers and nine weeks more than French and German workers.

United States Census data point to increased stress on women. The average middle-class married woman works 500 hours, or 12.5 weeks, more per year than in 1979.

"The No. 1 concern that women have today - even more than security - is a lack of time," said Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster.

Take Back Your Time and the Massachusetts Council of Churches worked closely last fall with the Lord's Day Alliance, an Atlanta-based group, to urge congregants through fliers and sermons to take "four windows of time" over a month to relax and spend time with their families.

"We're very concerned about the 24/7 commercialization of our society and people feeling stressed from working so many hours," said the council's executive director, the Rev. Diane Kessler.

The Lord's Day Alliance, which has long promoted observing the Sabbath, helped finance the campaign and hopes to spread it to other states.

"The needs are the same whether you're poor or rich, Republican or Democrat. You need time to be set aside," said Tim Norton, executive director of the Lord's Day Alliance. "From a Christian perspective, from purely a religious perspective, we believe that the Bible clearly teaches, Old Testament and New, that God created this rhythm of life that must include down time, a time to set aside and basically stop."

W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who has written extensively about evangelicals, said bridging the divide over how to give Americans more time will not be easy.

"Many hard-working, rank-and-file evangelicals would support legislation guaranteeing paid sick days or paid vacations," Professor Wilcox said. "But evangelical leaders will not go along with these ideas because their close allies in the business community are so firmly against it."

Todd Rakoff, a professor at Harvard Law School who has written about Americans' time squeeze, said, "There is something here that could be bridged, but someone has to grab hold of this issue and figure out a way to make political capital out of it."
http://www.swt.org/timeday/familytime-nyt030605.htm
User avatar
thorn
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue 29 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland
Top

Postby Leanan » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 11:32:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he dems just don't understand things like this - their kids are doing fine in the elite private schools they put them in, and they don't see any problem.


Wrong. The Democrats are the ones whose kids are in the failing inner city schools. Busing is good for them, because it's their chance to get their kids into those tony rich folks' schools.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Postby hull3551 » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 12:39:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nocar', '
')I'll try:
1. Lots of women...


Many good points. My wife didn't really need to work, but wanted some cash and just to get out of the house. Tedium, unfulfilling, money - all good points. She found having to ask me for spending cash was a bit degrading. Besides, we were on a tight budget, so she would be reluctant to ask - sort of an awkward and unfair it improved the general mood around the place; her additional income allowed things to ease up a bit, which is only ~20 hours per week.

We are lucky not to have to deal with the ever-deteriorating educational issue. We chose not to have children. In our views it was the greatest thing we could to do mitigate our impact on the environment. But I know many people with kids and I can see why they have them.

I live in Cincnnati and there hadn't been a school there built since the 70's. Jump to the 'burbs, where many families are flocking, and kids are being taught in trailers, since the schooll they built five years ago is already beyond capacity. Home schooling seems to be a logical alternative.
User avatar
hull3551
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun 13 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Bellingham, Wash
Top

Postby Roy » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 13:25:23

Take Back Your Time sounds like a great idea.

But the corportations will NEVER allow it. It cuts into their bottom line.

Astute posters on this board have pointed out that short term profits are the #1 concern. Any CEO that doesn't make short-term profits isn't a CEO for long.

Humans are seen as a resource to be exploited. Period. All the nice talk about families is just that. See your Human Resources department LOL

I work for the state and profits are not an issue. We get 22 vacation days a year, 18 sick days, and 14 holidays. Name one private company in the US that gives a similar package. Every private enterprise engineering job I had started out with 1 week of vacation per year or something similar.

When I mention my employer's annual leave policy to people in private industry they stare in disbelief.

But in Europe I think everyone gets at least 4 weeks of vacation. I don't know if that's legislated or not.

Here, if you can't come to work, there's always someone who doesn't have a kid, or who doesn't care, that can fill your position -- probably for less money. Bottom line is lower wages/less wages = more short term profits.

It frustrating and I'm starting to believe that there is no hope for our American system as it is. It is too far gone and the only chance for a decent future will involve the dissolution of the current government, either by peaceful or violent means, and the creation of a new ideal. One that recognizes the value of things other than money.

How do we get there? That's for the smarter posters on this board to plan.

I just know we need to get somewhere that this society as it is structured today will NEVER go.

rant over.
Roy
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri 18 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Getting in touch with my Inner Redneck

Postby hull3551 » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 13:38:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Roy', '
')Here, if you can't come to work, there's always someone who doesn't have a kid, or who doesn't care, that can fill your position...


Yeah, well it sort of sucks when you are the person with no kids and it's expected that you will be the one to work late or come in on Saturdays since the parents have soccer, baseball, etc. or need to pick the kids up at daycare - meanwhile, being stuck to finish up.
User avatar
hull3551
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun 13 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Bellingham, Wash
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron