Ray of Economic Sunshine #2: Debunking the Political BS about Oregon’s unemployment rate
Chuck Sheketoff
This week the reputable communications and lobbying firm Conkling Fiskum & McCormick (CFM) reported in their usually helpful electronic newsletter that Oregon’s minimum wage will rise by 45 cents come January. The folks at CFM showed that they read BlueOregon, noting that I called the announced increase "a ray of sunshine" in a recent Blue Oregon post. CFM also summed up my BlueOregon post’s assessment of the health of the industries that fought the minimum wage increase this way: “the sectors most critical of the minimum wage mandate, such as food service and agriculture, have experienced very high growth rates since 2002.”
Then CFM slipped into Political BS (Bogus Statement) mode. The CFM article asserted “[h]owever, for the majority of that time [since 2002] the state unemployment rate has remained higher than the national average.” The suggestion by CFM and business groups that a relatively high minimum wage and higher-than-average unemployment levels are related is Political BS.
Here’s why the unemployment rate canard does not work: Oregon’s annual unemployment rate has only been below the national average 5 years in the past 35 years. On a monthly basis since January 1976 (as far back as online US Bureau monthly data goes), the seasonally adjusted monthly unemployment rate has been below the national rate just 17 percent of the time.
Oregon’s typically higher-than-average unemployment rate well predates the 2002 ballot measure that bumped up the state’s minimum wage and tied it to the cost of living. Even when Oregon has had tremendous economic growth as measured by productivity growth, Gross State Product, or whatever, we often have had an unemployment rate higher than the national average.
As OCPP and the economists at the Oregon Employment Department have noted, our typically higher-than-national-average unemployment is due to population growth and the structure of our economy (see, e.g. Who’s Getting Ahead?, page 4.
Blaming the minimum wage for Oregon's unemployment rate is like blaming global warming on the decline of pirates. (click to view one of my favorite graphs)
That said, Oregonians shouldn’t ignore our typically higher-than-national-average unemployment rate.
First and foremost Oregonians should continue to improve our already important and successful unemployment insurance system. That program provides economic stability for both businesses and workers.
That’s why we at OCPP are looking to the 2009 Legislative Assembly to bring the unemployment insurance system into the 21st century with improvements that will help unemployed part-time and short-term workers and improve opportunities for training for unemployed Oregonians.
I hope the good folks at CFM and others will stop using our unemployment rate to perpetuate Political BS and instead will join us in working to improve the public structures that address the problem they point to.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
7:52 p.m.
Sep 19, '08
Thanks, Chuck, for this post and for your hard work in fighting for decent wages. I know that many in Oregon's religious community stand with you.
Sep 19, '08
Darn. Wish my employer would give me an $18 per week pay raise. This is really cool, though - at this rate, within the next decade or so, most folks will be making minimum wage. Doesn't matter whether you're flipping burgers or working as a nurse.
Sep 19, '08
Reminds me of Nike in the early 90's. The Korean government had to ask Phil Knight to lower his wages at his factories because, under pressure from progressives in the Oregon and the rest of the US he raised their wages. The result was he was paying more than teachers, professors, and other professionals. They left their job to work for Nike and created a brain drain affecting the country. Nike had to lower their wages for the sake of Korea's future.
Oregon's religious community stands for fair wages and for education so people don't rely on things, such as minimum wage jobs, that they aren't suppose to support permanently support themselves or a family.
Chuck: Please cite your source for # of pirates. I don't think that there is 17 pirates, even if you count the ones in Pittsburg.
Your x&y axis runs in opposite directions which is an incorrect way to show data and would fail a basic logic course. Even if you are trying to be funny, improperly showing data makes your argument fail. If proper x&y axis's are used, your graph disproves your argument.
Sep 20, '08
My theory is that the Republic Party is dedicated to eliminating minimum- much less decent- wages so that they can, after decades of difficulty, finally "get good help these days."
I post that more in bitterness than in flippancy. It remains amazing to me how many college students I've met over the past four decades who, having taken a single economics course, are absolutely convinced that "the minimum wage creates unemployment."
The most egregious abuse of the minimum wage law is the one endorsed by the Republicans and supported by Gordon Smith... the application- Florida and Arizona style- of tips to the hourly wage amount so that the actual employer obligation is something like $3.25 an hour. Had Gordo had his way, Oregon would have been required to accept and enforce that circumstance or quit paying minimum wages higher than the federal standard just a couple of years down the road.
9:18 a.m.
Sep 20, '08
Chuck is right in identifying a number of reasons why Oregon's unemployment rate is higher than the national average, but he is wrong to pretend that minimum wage laws have no impact on unemployment.
One of the little discussed phenomenon's in Oregon's economy since the mid-1990s has been the higher unemployment rate in rural than in urban part of the state. As the Employment Department noted in their analysis a couple of years ago, that didn't use to be the case before the mid-1990s and generally is still not the case across the rest of the country.
The timing of this development suggests it is tied to the decline in Oregon's natural resource-based industries which, particularly wood products, which historically has been predominant rural Oregon. In the past, the decline of employment in rural Oregon would have led people to leave to find jobs elsewhere. Today, it appears that more people are staying in these depressed areas and trying to make do.
But it is also likely that Oregon's higher (and higher) minimum wage will compound job loss in the depressed economies of rural Oregon even while it has little or no impact in Portland and other urban areas where even starting wages tend to be above the minimum.
I would be interested in hearing Chuck's views on this phenomenon.
9:59 a.m.
Sep 20, '08
You're pulling our leg here, aren't you, Jack?
The impact of lost jobs on rural areas has been a hot topic for some of us for decades. Maybe not for you "since the mid-1990s" when you were Labor Commissioner, but I remember the Reagan Recession of the early '80s, when unemployment was bad enough in Eugene and Springfield when Weyerhauser shut down but was more than 25% among timber workers outside of the metro area.
I don't know what Employment Department report you're referring to, but I'll have some of what they're smoking.
Larry Swanson, Director of Economic Analysis, Dureau of Business and Economic Research, UNiversity of Montana, Montana Business Quarterly, 1992:
And if they hadn't lost population, the unemployment rates in those counties would have been even higher.
Sep 20, '08
Chip -- just an aside on the success of our unemployment system. All staffers I've experienced thus far are deeply compassionate, courteous, and save for one who left a mess on my claim that neccesitated two more phone encounters to fix.... competent.
They report being profoundly understaffed and concerned about this for the effect it is having on us claimants. On the average, it is 3 - 4 weeks before a claim is initially touched by an adjudicator. It can take longer. Meanwhile, there is no cashflow for the job seeker.
The standard telephone (800 numbers, that is)wait time, and it is NEVER less, on the telephone, to get a question answered, or to get actual work done on your account, is forty minutes and does stretch to more than one hour upon notable occassion. I feel concern for the mental health and burn out of those diligent workers in that agency. They do a great job. And must be overwhelmed.
In order to get my claim established, I spent a total of seven hours on the telephone in separate calls. It took me a full week to get my claim going because of this. I had simple questions, not answered on their web, and not allowed to be brought to the branch for response. I HAD to call the UI system lines and spend my forty minutes to 1+ hour on the line awaiting my turn to ask a question so I'd know what to do to best get my claim moving.
Again, these people are so very worth the wait -- they are diligent, knowledgable, warm. However, this is a serious obstacle for those of us who are intensive and serious job searchers. That is time I should be spending on the telephone landing contracts! Interviewing prospective employers! Asking Kenexa staff how to unbollux that job select cart!
Sep 20, '08
Will global warming lead to lower unemployment in Oregon?
Mild Climate and Unemployment Rates
With the notable exception of Alaska and Hawaii, states with milder climates tend to have higher unemployment rates. The severity of climates is indicated by data on heating and cooling degree days from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The degree-days measure is a gauge of the amount of heating in the winter and cooling in the summer that is necessary to maintain a comfortable home temperature. The data represent the climate during the 1971-2000 period.
Graph 1 shows the relationship between the 48 contiguous states' climates and their average unemployment rates for the 1990 to 2005 period. States with mild climates such as California tended to have higher unemployment rates. States with more severe climates such as North Dakota tended to have lower unemployment rates. Obviously, some states with similar levels of degree days had very different average unemployment rates. The climate helps explain only a portion of the variation in unemployment rate from state to state.
5:04 p.m.
Sep 20, '08
Jack,
To respond to your comment, I need you to post and answer the following:
Please provide a copy of or link to the Employment Department study you refer to "
What basis do you have for the claim that in the past people left rural areas when jobs went away, and that it happened more than it does today? You wrote
And you don't explain why it is "likely" that Oregon's inflation adjusted minimum wage will compound job loss in rural Oregon more than in urban areas? What's the basis for "likely"? Do you think there are more fast food restaurants in rural areas or do you have other reasons to think there are more minimum wage jobs that are at stake? Are all rural areas the same -- are the coastal rural communities the same as central and eastern Oregon?
7:04 p.m.
Sep 20, '08
Chuck, here are my preliminary responses to your questions:
My recollection is that this was an article in Oregon Labor Trends but I haven't been able to locate it yet. I'll keep looking but I may not find it until I get to my office on Monday. I post a link when I find it.
My conclusion is drawn from my memory of the data, which historically showed a close correlation between unemployment rates in urban and rural communities both in Oregon and nationally, although throughout the period there was a gap between average wages in rural areas compared to urban areas.
Since I also know that both job growth and population growth was greater in urban areas than in rural areas over this period, I asssumed that equilibrium was probably the product of a willingness on the part of rural residents to move to where the jobs were as economic conditions shifted.
The only alternative explanations I can think of is that employment declines follow population declines or that decline due to some independent variable. While I think both of these factors are also at work to some degree, to me the most reasonable explanation is that when jobs are declining in A and increasing in B, people tend to leave A and move to B until the relative risk of joblessness is equalized.
My conclusion, however, was based on my belief that urban employers will be better able simply to absorb the higher labor costs (either directly or by passing higher costs on to customers) than rural employers who generally operate in more depressed economic conditions where lower profit margins and purchasing power from customers might make those increases harder to absorb and therefore would result in reducing employment.
Your point about distinguishing between coastal counties, whose economies are increasingly tourism- and retirement-based, and central and eastern Oregon counties is a good one. Although coastal counties may have a larger percentage of minimum wage workers, they also may be better able to pass increased costs onto their customers, many of whom come from more affluent areas, so it is not clear how this might work out.
I'll admit I am concerned about the potential impact on employment of the substantial CPI adjustment in Oregon's minimum starting January 1 combined with what could by then be a full-blown recession. However, I do agree that simply comparing relative minimum wages with aggregate unemployment rates gives a very clear picture of that relationship.
7:36 p.m.
Sep 20, '08
The last sentence of my previous post should read, "However I do agree that simply comparing relative minimum wages with aggregate unemploymnt rates does not give a very clear picture of that relationship."
Sep 20, '08
"It remains amazing to me how many college students I've met over the past four decades who, having taken a single economics course, are absolutely convinced that "the minimum wage creates unemployment."
It's amazing what a single economics course and a little bit of logic will accomplish.
The idea that raising minimum wage will come at no cost to the people doing such jobs is completely illogical. They will pay through lost jobs, increased competition for those jobs, or higher prices. I've personally known several people who have lost jobs when the MW has been adjusted (i.e. gas station attendants, fast food employees, etc).
I don't think MW laws are all bad, and I definitely believe that they are well-intentioned, but to pretend that they come at no cost (to the people they are meant to help) is just plain stupid.
Sep 20, '08
"My conclusion, however, was based on my belief that urban employers will be better able simply to absorb the higher labor costs (either directly or by passing higher costs on to customers) than rural employers who generally operate in more depressed economic conditions where lower profit margins and purchasing power from customers might make those increases harder to absorb and therefore would result in reducing employment."
Jack, there is also "what the market will bear". If local businesses can't hire enough people at min. wage to fill their needs, they will have to pay more than min. wage (fast food, retail, child care are tough ways to make a living, and in some cases pay at least a bit over min. wage so that they can attract quality employees and avoid high turnover).
For all the rhetoric by some that only teenagers make min. wage, there are plenty of people who work in fast food, retail or child care because that is all they can find---incl. college educated people over 40 who get laid off.
Our local KFC has a sign "Management training available, inquire within". I once worked in a McDonalds several years after graduating from college because I needed a job. It is tough for people above a certain age to have the stamina to work in food service management.
There are lots of underemployed people in Oregon---that product demonstrator or person giving out food samples in Costco or the local grocery store may be a college grad working a second part time job.
There has been too much glib rhetoric over the years implying that college grads all have good full time jobs. Those of us who have had the "don't go to work tomorrow, you'll be getting something in the mail" phone call or group severance meeting because a department or division was being eliminated (or otherwise subject to layoff) know that isn't true. Often all that is available after that is part time, temp. multiple jobs.
Which is why there are some very smart people working in retail/customer service who have to answer every question (no matter how stupid) with a smile, and give detailed information. These folks often have no patience with politicians, broadcasters, or other public figures not able to do the same thing.
Sep 20, '08
"It remains amazing to me how many college students I've met over the past four decades who, having taken a single economics course, are absolutely convinced that "the minimum wage creates unemployment."
How about this:
It remains amazing to me how many college students I've met over the past four decades who, having taken a single (biology/paleontology/meteorology) course, are absolutely convinced that (evolution happens/dinosaurs existed before God created people/global warming is real).
Sep 20, '08
When looking at the difference in wages or gross employee income between rural and urban populations, I think that people need to keep in mind the fact that a lot of work in rural areas is agricultural. Ag labor, at least some of it, is exempt from minimum wage laws. Workers are paid piece work rates, and a lot of labor is done by family members and owners/partners in a farm, these people are also exempt from minimum wage laws. Theoretically, they could work for 5 cents/hour and still be perfectly legal. That can, if included in numbers from which average wages are figured, can skew the estimates quite a bit.
Sep 20, '08
The idea that raising minimum wage will come at no cost to the people doing such jobs is completely illogical.
It's not illogical.
Henry Ford had it right when he said it made good business sense to pay high wages so that his employers could afford his products.
Today's minimum wage is hardly a good wage, but at least it gives a bit of purchasing power to a large segment of our population.
Sep 20, '08
Relatively few Americans earn the federal minimum wage. In 2005, 1.9 million Americans reported earning $5.15 or less per hour. This amounted to 2.5 percent of all workers earning hourly wages and 1.5 percent of all workers in the United States.
See the rest of this fascinating report here
9:40 p.m.
Sep 20, '08
Actually, ag labor is not exempt from the state minimum wage.
Sep 20, '08
Henry Ford had it right when he said it made good business sense to pay high wages so that his employers could afford his products.
I'm not saying that there aren't good things about MW laws, my objection is to the idea that they don't come at a cost. Almost every study on the actual effect of MW on employment suggests that it increases unemployment, but how much is debatable.
It could be that 100 people will benefit and 2 people will lose jobs. We may make the decision that it's worth it to us to make those 100 people better off, but lets not pretend that those other 2 people are better off too.
What bothers me is that I know Chuck knows this stuff. I assume that he's very intelligent from some of the work he's done, but he frequently ignores the most basic rule of economics in his posts. TANSTAAFL!
Sure, Ford employees could afford to buy the cars, but there were consequently fewer employees. Maybe good for Ford, bad for the people who didn't have jobs.
8:59 a.m.
Sep 21, '08
How do you know? Before Ford set up his first plant to build cars, it didn't have any employees, so you don't have a basis for comparison.
Sep 21, '08
I know because there is always a finite amount of money. Ford's paying employees more meant that the money came from reducing employees, increasing the cost of the cars, or from his own pocket (probably the least likely outcome- if he could do either of the other, he would). Just in case you think that increasing the price of the cars was the better outcome, remember that the people who bought Fords then had less money for other things.
There have been studies on minimum wage. The one study that showed no effect on employment asked store owners if the INTENDED to reduce employees (they said no). When they looked at actual employment stats though, they found a small increase in unemployment. Though the effects varied, there was some small negative effect.
Sep 21, '08
Jack Roberts - Actually, ag labor is not exempt from the state minimum wage.
I don't know if you mean that as in all ag labor is not exempt, and I understand that. I said that some ag labor is exempt.
From BOLI's FAQ page regarding agriculture and the minimum wage law -
Employers are not required to pay overtime to employees performing work that meets the definition of "agriculture". In some cases they may also be exempt from paying minimum wage.
BOLI Technical Assistance
10:55 a.m.
Sep 21, '08
That's not proof that it was reducing the number of employees, though. You yourself, have offered three possible options. You don't provide any evidence whatsoever that it was reducing employees, just your own conjecture.
I could just as easily posit that without Ford's willingness to create an internal market for his product -- which also put pressure on other employers inside and outside the auto industry to raise wages -- that the number of people who could have afforded his cars would have been limited in size and that his venture might not have reached a point where its sales volume could offset the initial capital expenditures for the plant. Ford essentially doubled the standard daily wages, reducing his turnover and absenteeism rates dramatically, as well as making his production lines more efficient. Ford viewed it as a sort of pump-priming maneuver. More efficiency meant more money.
Which kind of pokes a hole into your "finite amount of money" theory.
Now, I could be wrong, too, but I've offered up just as much evidence as you have.
Sep 21, '08
It's amazing how DB can take a simple quote and make such a massive and personal contribution to global warming...
I didn't say "raising the minimum wage." These kids were convinced that the existence of a minimum wage caused unemployment. And I guess if you're willing to agree that slavery is an acceptable form of employment, that works.
12:34 p.m.
Sep 21, '08
Joanne, you're right that there are some special exemptions for agricultural workers even in Oregon, but these are very limited. I don't think that has a significant impact on the relative incomes between rural and urban counties.
The main difference is that the percentage of low-paying jobs in rural counties is greater than in urban counties and that even the same jobs tend to pay better in urban counties. People who live in rural counties either make that trade-off in order to live where they want to live or don't believe they can compete as well for the same jobs in urban areas.
12:51 p.m.
Sep 21, '08
Also, it is not true that Ford hired fewer workers when they implemented their famous "$5 a day" compensation program in 1908. Nor did they make up the additional cost by selling cars to the workers, popular mythology to the contrary nothwithstanding.
What actually happened is that Ford increased productivity by reducing absenteeism and turnover and by attracting the best workers available (at least until their competitors had to raise wages to keep up).
This plan was not simply a wage increase, however, but actually a very paternalistic program that involved Ford's managemet in trying to bring Ford workers into the "middle class" by limiting the program to married men whose home lives had been "assessed" and who demonstrated the propert "character" to make them likely to be good workers. They actually began with a very unprogrssive view of their workers as men who drank up their wages on payday and lived tumultuous home lives that kept them from being reliable and productive workers.
Ultimately, this paternalistic intervention in the private lives of the workers caused the program to fail but setting the stage for labor unions to make the case that higher wages could be paid for by a productive and more affluent workforce. For a good history of this experiment I recommend The Five Dollar Day by Stepehn Meyer III (SUNY Press, 1981).
Sep 21, '08
Wouldn't a maximum wage for Oregon go well with our minimum wage and help level the playing field?
Sep 21, '08
When I read the "college student" statement, it triggered my frustration at the crazy conservative rejection of science in recent years. I consequently resorted to trollish behavior by making unsubstantiated claims and sweeping generalizations.
Sorry.
I would still maintain that the mere existence of a minimum wage higher than the equilibrium wage causes one of those three things- i.e. lower employment, higher prices, or lower profits (if the former two options are not possible).
I spoke about Ford as an example without knowing the details. It sounds from Jack's post that Ford decided to pay market wages for what he saw as a higher "class" of employee that was more productive and less prone to absenteeism than the average production employee.
Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to minimum wages. But I don't think that we should pretend that they come at no cost. If you're a person making minimum wage, an increase is good for you- unless you're one of those who lose their job or hours at work.
I think we need to take a real look at the costs AND benefits before we decide to make changes to minimum wage. Chuck's analysis doesn't allow us to do that.
8:08 p.m.
Sep 21, '08
I am glad to see that former BOLI Commissioner Jack Roberts clarified both the ag-minimum wage issue -- most workers in ag are covered in Oregon -- and that "simply comparing relative minimum wages with aggregate unemploymnt rates does not give a very clear picture of that relationship."
So Jack, will you jump on board and support changes to the UI system that will provide UI to more unemployed part-time and short-term workers and improve opportunities for training for unemployed Oregonians? I also hope you will refrain from the Political BS with regard to UI.
9:23 a.m.
Sep 22, '08
First, Chuck, let me follow up on my reference to the differential between urban and rural unemployment rates. I think the data I was summarizing from memory was om the lead article in the February 2000 issue of Oregon Labor Trends, which unfortunately is no longer available on their website. While I thought I had downloaded a copy, so far I haven't been able to find it. If I do, I'll send it along to you.
Now as to unemployment insurance, I honestly haven't had a chance to look at the issue of extending UI benefits to part-time and short-term workers. I'm not sure exactly what you mean about "Political BS with regard to UI" but if you are referencing efforts to shorten the eligibility period for workers to receive UI benefits, I always opposed that when I was labor commissioner.
The theory behind shortening the period of eligibility, as I understand it, is that this will force workers to take any available job sooner in order to get back to work. This may be the "Political BS" you were talking about. If so, I agree with you. I believe the data on this is actually pretty clear (and I'm doing this from memory, so please don't ask for this citation either):
People who get reemployed quickest after being fired or laid off on average take a job that actually pays them more than the job they lost. The average wage of the replacement job then drops gradually until just before the expiration of benefits, at which time desperate workers take substantially lower paying jobs than the one they lost.
Some have argued that this proves that a shorter eligibility period will force workers to get desperate quicker. That's probably true, but I think that's a bad thing. I think it is better overall if displaced workers have a reasonable time on UI to seek out the right job without undue pressure to take just any job. Trading lower unemployment (if any) for more underemployment is not necessarily a good trade-off for the economy as whole, and certainly not for workers and their families.
That's also why I think it makes sense to extend eligibility periods during economic downturns.
I do support job training and child care for unemployed workers and was very disappointed when the Jobs Plus program was eliminated. Cynically, it seemed to me this program had no real constituency because it only benefited the workers themselves with a minimum of bureaucratic overhead.
Oct 1, '08
uweg ouzjwin fmyaeqt bxje jwxz wgfrzlb rnadxmiy
Oct 2, '08
mtihsz fnqvxtb okqi
Oct 2, '08
owtcy zibe qupab
Oct 2, '08
stmjuiy zevmpkl bzvfp ediu
Oct 2, '08
pivognc culo
Oct 2, '08
rngvu
Oct 2, '08
xwrafbo
Oct 2, '08
osevn liamxyp zmcknb
Oct 2, '08
jcgrsoh oyer ltkeshr
Oct 2, '08
jcgrsoh oyer ltkeshr
Oct 2, '08
txaiw whdnk jmex
Oct 2, '08
sdaw mqjhbp isocq bceqmau
Oct 2, '08
qfjd lfop
Oct 2, '08
lnpwt fzundt kpxic
Oct 2, '08
xedlo oiycz
Oct 2, '08
gcij ekzxb
Oct 2, '08
yxjtmp iubz qcpvi
Oct 2, '08
qayhlw
Oct 2, '08
krldj ceybg
Oct 2, '08
tpsc slfg azelr hafdk
Oct 3, '08
wnjy jqmscre mbokvsd ksjx
Oct 3, '08
kowhnpe vrode tinyup iwylqhj
Oct 3, '08
mujwne yfiugm
Oct 3, '08
qhifk neroyx prami opfk
Oct 3, '08
uftgb frioed ecwha izjreck
Oct 3, '08
plbf xbgzqa dhjlf
Oct 5, '08
uovkncq jgmayl gvmec
Oct 5, '08
bxfsclz plftwv lhxpmbe
Oct 5, '08
awzulf jegniz woba
Oct 5, '08
awzulf jegniz woba
Oct 5, '08
mtkg
Oct 5, '08
ocra uolkhq jmlyp ftijhw
Oct 5, '08
kdawgr zpnqe
Oct 5, '08
rxaiz pctq
Oct 5, '08
riuzy qnexuvd
Oct 5, '08
hjsxgo lwxn zfxq
Oct 5, '08
csfj
Oct 5, '08
adbinf hbdjfup
Oct 5, '08
ajmgdc wjtuvz
Oct 5, '08
myvbos uiwa
Oct 5, '08
ymiublh anquw jaibku
Oct 5, '08
adrhq eufa
Oct 5, '08
fpubv krmd
Oct 5, '08
rodjglu ajwdeoi ndgbxv tyujpz
Oct 5, '08
rodjglu ajwdeoi ndgbxv tyujpz
Oct 5, '08
azoe ermgnu aqrk
Oct 6, '08
pbkedzn ayxpnzv epvo hekjb
Oct 6, '08
ytunaif jxginrz ogecft qusjmrv
Oct 6, '08
zmspryq
Oct 7, '08
jtlnew
Oct 7, '08
eswrkn ahvuj gisqbx
Oct 9, '08
uctz
Oct 9, '08
fbxw
Oct 9, '08
hksyjap cfbhawr evskbdu
Oct 9, '08
izleb wsia vydcwmk ehfydi
Oct 9, '08
ideywmo vxogdk klanv dpjxmuh
Oct 9, '08
bslhya oaunjkz sexjp kfrq
Oct 9, '08
dqzakym gdpna hgoc
Oct 9, '08
hdasqz xnrfe tcgpe
Oct 19, '08
rgud