The BLS Employment Situation Summary for January 2014

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 17th, 2014

Economics 101

The Unemployment Rate is 13.6% when you count all Unemployed Workers

The economy is getting better and better.  There are more new jobs.  And the unemployment rate continues to fall.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  But this is little succor for the 10,948,000 who have lost their job since President Obama began trying to make the economy better.  No matter what the BLS says (see the Employment Situation Summary posted 2/7/2014 on the Bureau of Labor Statistics).

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 113,000 in January, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 6.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.  Employment grew in construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, and mining…

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.2 percent), adult women (5.9 percent), teenagers (20.7 percent), whites (5.7 percent), blacks (12.1 percent),and Hispanics (8.4 percent) showed little change in January. The jobless rate for Asians was 4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted), down by 1.7 percentage points over the year. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.).

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 3.6 million, declined by 232,000 in January. These individuals accounted for 35.8 percent of the unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 1.1 million over the year.  (See table A-12.)

Once again there are more new jobs and the unemployment rate fell.  Further proof the Obama administration says that their policies are working.  But the low unemployment rate is misleading.  As there are 91,455,000 people who are no longer in the labor force (see Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age).  An increase of 10,948,000 since President Obama entered office.  The BLS doesn’t count these unemployed people as unemployed in their calculation of the official unemployment rate.  If you did that would raise the unemployment rate to 13.6%.  Which is a lot higher than the official 6.6%.  And better reflects public sentiment on the economy.

Ironically, the people hurt most by the Obama economic policies—teenagers, blacks and Hispanics—are also the biggest supporters of the president.  Which tells us they obviously support him for reasons other than the economy.  And apparently put those reasons above having a job.  At least based their respective unemployment rates.

If we count all Unemployed and Underemployed the Current Economic Recovery would take more than 20 Years

Of the people they actually count as unemployed about a third of them have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more.  So a large percentage of the unemployed are not suffering from frictional unemployment.  That brief period of unemployment between jobs.  No.  These people have lost their jobs.  And can’t find new ones.  While others can find only part-time jobs.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 514,000 to 7.3 million in January. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time work. (See table A-8.)

In January, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

If you add the people up who want a full-time job but can’t get one that’s 9,900,000 who can’t find a full-time job.  If we only add 113,000 jobs a month it will take over 87 months to get these people the full-time jobs they want.  Or more than 7 years.  If we count the last 5 years of the Obama presidency it will take the economic recovery out to 12 years.  If we add the people who have left the labor force to the underemployed (the part-time workers looking for a full-time job) that would extend the economic recovery to 244 months.  Or more than 20 years.  Which is longer than the length of the economic recovery following the Great Depression.

The Obama administration still blames George W. Bush for causing the Great Recession.  But one thing they do say over and over is that it was the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.  So they are saying that the Great Depression was worse than the Great Recession.  Yet the current economic recovery is on track to last longer than the economic recovery following the Great Depression.

President Obama’s Economic Recovery is on Course to be the Worst Economic Recovery in U.S. History

The Great Depression and the Great Recession share something in common.  In both the government used Keynesian economics to try and pull the nation out of the economic crisis.  With huge government stimulus spending.  You can see evidence of the FDR spending today.  Such as the Hoover Dam.  But you can see little evidence from President Obama’s stimulus spending.  For there are no Hoover Dams anywhere.  Just a lot of empty buildings that housed failed green energy industries.  With no new jobs to show for it.  Such as those good-paying jobs in the green energy industry that President Obama promised his stimulus spending would produce.  But, alas, it did not.  In fact, that’s just one thing this administration is not good at.  Creating jobs.  Even the jobs they created appear suspect.

Employment in manufacturing increased in January (+21,000). Over the month, job gains occurred in machinery (+7,000), wood products (+5,000), and motor vehicles and parts (+5,000). Manufacturing added an average of 7,000 jobs per month in 2013.

In January, wholesale trade added 14,000 jobs, with most of the increase occurring in nondurable goods (+10,000).

Mining added 7,000 jobs in January, compared with an average monthly gain of 2,000 jobs in 2013…

Employment in other major industries, including transportation and warehousing, information, and financial activities, showed little or no change over the month.

These numbers don’t make sense.  Much like Keynesian economics.  The economy created jobs in manufacturing (machinery, wood products, motor vehicles and parts).  Wholesale trade added jobs.  Mining added jobs.  But this new economic activity required no new financing.  Which is odd.  For it takes money to make money.  Also, there were no new jobs in transportation and warehousing.  Which begs the question.  What did they do with all the stuff they made from all those new manufacturing jobs?  Did it ever leave these factories?  Or is there another explanation?  Did the people who entered the labor force just replace people who left it?  For no net change?  Perhaps.

The manufacturing workweek declined by 0.2 hour to 40.7 hours, and factory overtime edged down by 0.1 hour to 3.4 hours.

Or perhaps this explains how they could add jobs in an industry that required no additional financing, transportation or warehousing.  Hiring new workers while shortening the workweek and cutting back on overtime.  Or a combination of this and people leaving the labor force to net out any economic gain from these new jobs.  Whatever the explanation is one thing is certain.  The economy is not improving.  And President Obama’s economic recovery is on track to be the worst economic recovery in U.S. history.  Despite the glowing jobs reports showing new job creation month after month.  And a continuing falling unemployment.  Things they can only show by not counting the 10 million or so who are no longer employed.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

U-3, U-6 and the Labor Force Participation Rate 2004 through February 2013

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 12th, 2013

History 101

During Obama’s First Term the U-3 and U-6 Unemployment Rates moved Further Apart

The latest employment data showed the official unemployment rate fell in February to 7.7% from 7.9% in January.  The Labor Department also reported the addition of 227,000 new jobs.  Proof, the economists say, that the economy is improving.  But when you dig deeper into the data you find otherwise.  For the economy may have added 227,000 new jobs but 296,000 jobs left the labor market.  And they didn’t count these people as unemployed.  So there was a net loss of jobs.  Despite the fall in the official unemployment rate.

We keep saying official unemployment rate for a reason.  For the government has six different unemployment rates.  The ‘official’ rate is what they call U-3.  Which doesn’t count a lot of people who can’t find full time work.  A more inclusive rate is the U-6 number (see Labor Force Participation Rate for an explanation of the U-3, U-6 and the labor force participation rate).  The U-6 rate counts pretty much everyone who can’t find a full-time job.  Including discouraged workers, the marginally attached and those working part-time because they can’t find a full-time job.  Before the Great Recession (during the George W. Bush administration) the U-3 and U-6 unemployment rates tracked closer together than they do now (during the Barack Obama administration).  As we can see in the following chart (see Data Retrieval: Labor Force Statistics (CPS) for data source).

Unemployment Rates U3 U6 2004-2013

During Bush’s second term U-3 was between 4% & 6%.  And U-6 was between 8% and 10%.  But during Obama’s first term U-3 shot above Bush’s U-6.  And Obama’s U-6 soared to twice Bush’s U-6.  Most of this was due to the subprime mortgage crisis.  And the resulting Great Recession.  But that doesn’t explain why the graphs moved further apart.  And why did they do this?  Was it because they were overstating U-6?  Were they understating U-3?  Or is there some other explanation?  It has to be something.  And it’s likely not good.

The Official Unemployment Rate has been Understated by at least 2.9 Points during the Obama Presidency

During President Bush’s second term there was on average a 4-point spread between U-3 and U-6.  During President Obama’s first term this point spread increased to 6.9.  A difference of 2.9 points.  Which if we subtract to U-6 or add to U-3 the graphs will move closer together.  So they track each other at the same distance apart from each other they did during Bush’s second term.  When you look at the labor participation factor and the lost jobs one can only assume we’re understating U-3.  And not overstating U-6.  So if we add 2.9 points to U-3 after December 2008 the graphs look like this.

Unemployment Rates U3 Adjusted U6 2004-2013

We can ignore the sharp rise in U-3 adjusted.  As the loss 2.9 points of the U-3 unemployment rate would not have been instantaneous once January 2009 hit.  But once we get to the new highs the graphs maintain the same distance from each other as they did during Bush’s second term.  Which means the official unemployment rate didn’t fall from approximately 10% to 8% during Obama’s first term.  It actually fell from 12.9% to 10.6%.  And that the current official unemployment rate is not 7.7%.  But 10.6%.  Which is, of course, 2.9 points higher.

So the official unemployment rate is higher than they report.  With the official unemployment being understated by at least 2.9 points.  And the economy is not improving like they say.  Anyone reading the jobs data can see this.  But the Obama administration and their friends in the media, as well as mainstream economists, all say everything is getting better.  Or they say it is just the new normal.  To provide some cover for their failed Keynesian economic policies.  Which failed to pull the economy out of the Great Depression.  They failed to pull the economy out of the stagflation of the Seventies.  And they are now failing to pull the economy out of the Great Recession.

The ‘New Normal’ under President Obama has been a Steadily Declining Labor Force Participation Rate

Keynesian economics calls for the government to have control of interest rates.  They keep interest rates artificially low.  To expand the money supply.  They also increase taxes.  And borrow money.  Just so they can spend.  A lot.  For Keynesian theory says when the economy falls into recession the government should spend.  Even if it requires running a deficit.  To generate economic activity.  But expanding the money supply only causes inflation.  And higher prices.  Which dampens economic activity.  Which is why we have never spent our way out of a recession.  And never will.

President Obama is a Keynesian.  His Keynesian policies have hindered, not helped, the economic recovery.  And his excessive regulations have further hindered the economic recovery.  He shut down the domestic oil industry on public lands.  His war on coal has laid off swaths of coal miners and others in the coal industry. His rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline has prevented the creation of thousands of new jobs.  His environmental regulations have increased the cost of doing business.  As has Obamacare.  Which has put a freeze on new hiring.  And pushed lot of full time people to part time.  Nothing this administration has done has helped the economy.  While most everything it has done has hurt the economy.  And we can see that when we look at the labor force participation rate.  When we graph it along with U-3 (the official rate not the adjusted rate) and U-6 (see Employment Situation Archived News Releases for data source).

Unemployment Rates U3 U6 Labor Participation Rate 2004-2013

And here we see what caused U-3 and U-6 to move further apart.  U-3 is understated because people are continually leaving the labor force.  Unable to find a job.  This is why we have a net loss of jobs even when they report a gain of 227,000 new jobs in February.  Or a gain in any other month.  This is why the economy hasn’t improved under President Obama.  Despite what the official unemployment rate is.  And despite all of the new jobs they’ve created.  Because the ‘new normal’ under President Obama has been a steadily declining labor force participation rate.  Meaning he is a job destroyer.  And the only reason why the unemployment rate falls is because these people disappear from the labor force and they just don’t count them anymore.  Sort of how the European employment picture improved after the plague.  So many people left the labor force by dying that it created a labor shortage.  And low unemployment.  The problem here is that these people didn’t die.  They’re still out there waiting to rejoin the labor force.  To hire into jobs that are just not there.  And it’s going to take a long, long time for the economy to absorb these people.  Meaning the economy won’t be getting better anytime soon.  Because it’s a lot worse than they’re reporting.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The U-3 Unemployment Rate shows an Improving Economy while the while the U-6 Unemployment Rate begs to Differ

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 17th, 2012

Week in Review

With a presidential election coming up this year everyone is trying to talk up the good employment numbers.  Even well respected economic magazines (see Leaving the nest posted 3/9/2012 on The Economist).

As Jed Kolko of Trulia points out, this morning’s report included good news on that front:

“In February, the unemployment rate for 25-34 year-olds dropped to 8.7% from 9.0% in January and is at its lowest level in three years. The unemployment rate for all adults stayed steady at 8.3%. The recession hit this age group especially hard: their unemployment rate peaked at 10.6%, compared to 10.0% for all adults, but this gap is now closing. In February, 74.7% of 25-34 year-olds were employed (the rest were unemployed or not in the labor force because they’re in school, discouraged from looking or not looking for other reasons), up from 73.9% a year ago, but still way below the normal level of almost 80%.”

The unemployment rates they’re discussing are the U-3 numbers.  The ‘official’ unemployment rate as reported in the news.  Which has fallen.  Despite this being a ‘jobless’ recovery.  Which begs the question how can the unemployment rate go down when there are no new jobs to hire the unemployed?  Good question.  To answer it will require a brief discussion about arithmetic.  Because that’s how you calculate the unemployment rate.  You divide one number (let’s call it ‘A’) by another number (let’s call it ‘B’).  Multiply the resulting decimal number by 100 and you get a percentage.  Arithmetically it looks something like this: (A/B)*100.

Let’s say ‘A’ is the number of people unemployed.  You reduce the unemployment rate, then, by making ‘A’ smaller.  And there are two ways of doing that.  You either hire more people.  Or you don’t count everyone who can’t find a full-time job.  Which is what the U-3 unemployment rate does.  It doesn’t count the people working part-time because they can’t find a full-time job.  And it doesn’t count the people who have quit looking for work because they can’t find anything.  There is another unemployment rate that includes these people.  And it is a more fair representation of the jobs picture.  And explains the ‘jobless’ recovery.  The U-6 unemployment rate.

The U-3 rate may be at 8.3%.  But we know that’s not a fair representation of the jobs picture.  Because this so called ‘recovery’ is jobless.  And the U-6 rate explains how this ‘recovery’ can be jobless.  For the U-6 unemployment rate was 14.9% at the end of February 2012 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Which is closer to the Great Depression unemployment rate.  And explains how a ‘recovery’ can be ‘jobless’.   Because it’s not a recovery.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Keynesian Policies are giving us Great Depression Unemployment with no Hope of Economic Recovery

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 4th, 2011

Real Unemployment is Greater than the Unemployment Rate for about half of the Great Depression 

The unemployment numbers are bad.  But few realize just how bad they are.  The real unemployment numbers.  Not the official unemployment rate released by the government (U-3).  Because that number doesn’t count a lot of people who can’t find a full time job (see Unemployed face tough competition: underemployed by Paul Wiseman and Christopher Leonard posted 9/4/2011 on the Associated Press).

America’s 14 million unemployed aren’t competing just with each other. They must also contend with 8.8 million other people not counted as unemployed – part-timers who want full-time work…

And the unemployed will face another source of competition once the economy improves: Roughly 2.6 million people who aren’t counted as unemployed because they’ve stopped looking for work. Once they start looking again, they’ll be classified as unemployed. And the unemployment rate could rise.

Combined, the 14 million officially unemployed; the “underemployed” part-timers who want full-time work; and “discouraged” people who have stopped looking make up 16.2 percent of working-age Americans…

If you look at the unemployment rate during the Great Depression (1929 to 1941), this more real rate (16.2%) is greater than the unemployment rate for about half of those years.  From 1932 until 1936, the rate was 23.53%, 24.75%, 21.60%, 19.97% and 16.80%.  After dropping down to 14.18% in 1937, it went back up to 18.91% in 1938.  It fell to 17.05% in 1939.  It was below 16.2% for only 6 years of the 13 years of the Great Depression.  So this 16.2% is bad.  Very, very bad.  And very, very real.

In a healthy economy, this broader measure of unemployment stays below 10 percent. Since the Great Recession officially ended more than two years ago, the rate has been 15 percent or more.

Even if you don’t use Great Depression standards this 16.2% is still very, very bad.

Eventually, lots of Americans…will start looking for jobs again. If those work-force dropouts had been counted as unemployed, August’s unemployment rate would have been 10.6 percent instead of 9.1 percent.

If it wasn’t for a counting gimmick to exclude long-term unemployed who gave up looking for work, the official unemployment rate would count all the unemployed.  And it would be 10.6%.  Not the ‘official’ 9.1% reported.  Of course, throw in the underemployed and it’s back up to 16.2%.

If Taxes and Regulations were Good for the Economy, we wouldn’t have Real Unemployment of 16.2%

No doubt the employment picture is far worse than the media has reported.  And that Recovery Summer was purely political propaganda.  To put a positive spin on some really wasteful ‘stimulus’ spending.  Spending that was more pork and earmarks than stimulative.  And President Obama is going to address a joint-session of Congress to tell us how he’s going to fix the economy.  No doubt urging more of the same that hasn’t worked thus far (see Cheney dismisses Obama’s jobs speech: ‘Don’t think it will get the job done’ by Vicki Needham posted 9/4/2011 on The Hill).

Former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested Sunday that the White House should adopt Reagan-era tax and regulatory policy to spur economic growth…

“The Obama administration is doing exactly the opposite, they’re loading on more regulation on the private sector in respect to how the economy functions,” he said.

They say if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  But if it is broke then we should probably fix it.  And based on the real unemployment numbers, the Obama policies are broke.  And need to be fixed.  And a good place to start would be to back off on all of their regulations.  And stop with the new taxes.  We know they’re bad for the economy.  For if they were good for it, we wouldn’t have a real unemployment rate of 16.2%.

President Obama will address a joint session of Congress on Thursday to outline a jobs plan likely to include a call for more infrastructure spending along with an extension of the payroll tax cuts, unemployment benefits and tax incentives for business to pick up hiring…

The president used his weekly address to push passage of an extension of the surface transportation bill to spur highway construction, bridge repair and the improvement of mass transit systems.

Haven’t we heard this message before?  Infrastructure spending?  As in ‘shovel-ready jobs’?  That was the whole point of the stimulus bill.  And being that we’re still talking about ‘infrastructure spending’, apparently it didn’t work.  So why return to a failed policy?

Infrastructure Stimulus Projects are like a Pill that Cures the Common Cold…in only 3 Weeks

Even Obama conceded there was no such thing as a ‘shovel-ready’ job.  Not with the regulatory red tape you have to go through before breaking ground.  Which costs millions of dollars.  So it’s not likely anyone spent millions of dollars over the years just in anticipation of a stimulus program.  Something unknown then that would pay for a project started without adequate funding.  Yeah, like that would ever happen.

But infrastructure work isn’t your everyday make-work kind of employment.  It takes skill.  And experience.  It’s not picking up trash along the side of the road that any unemployed person can do without extensive training (see Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? Not Always for the Unemployed by Megan McArdle posted 91/2011 on The Atlantic).

In the construction industry, there’s another wrinkle; many of the specialties in heavy construction are, at least as I understand it, not overfull with qualified applicants; finding young people who have the math skills and other academic talents necessary to be a modern skilled construction worker, and also want to skip college and apprentice with an outfit like the operating engineers, is something that a lot of the skilled trades worry about. 

I think a lot of people assumed that doing infrastructure construction projects would be a great way to soak up excess labor from the homebuilding industry, but there’s not actually that much overlap; knowing how to install drywall or do framing work does not qualify you for a job that requires sandhogs and specialty welders.  And it can take a long time to make journeyman in many of these professions.  This is also true of certain kinds of civil engineers and so forth. 

Cleary infrastructure projects are not the panacea the Obama administration thinks they are.  They are not ‘shovel-ready’ for the unemployed.  After years of regulatory compliance expenditures, highly skilled and highly specialized workers will break ground.  Which won’t employ a single person outside these specialties.  At least, not without years of training.  And working as an apprentice.  Which will be years down the road.  Which won’t stimulate anything in the here and now. 

This is like a pill that cures the common cold.  In only 3 weeks.  They have no effect.  And their ‘cure’ is purely illusionary.

The Era of Keynesian Big Government came to an End in 1980…for Awhile 

So we know what doesn’t work.  We know what policies are wrong.  Almost 3 years of Obama policies have told us that.  But it’s easy to point to failure.  To identify problems.  It’s a little more difficult to fix problems.  But the amazing thing is we don’t have to fix them.  We just have to stop causing them (see Free The Market by Peter Boettke posted 9/2/2011 on The European).

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design”, F.A. Hayk once wrote. We would we well-served to heed his call and reinvigorate the ideology of the free market.

There are a few schools of economics.  There’s the Keynesian school.  The majority of mainstream economists adhere to this.  As well as the Obama administration.  And then there is the Austrian school.  Which is more in keeping with economists like F.A. Hayek and Adam Smith

The Keynesians want hands-on government control and spending.  The Austrian school doesn’t.  Because they don’t think they are better and smarter than the average consumer.

The past thirty years proved the validity of Adam Smith’s assertion, “The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition…is so powerful, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations.”

During “the age of Milton Friedman”, as Andrei Shleifer dubed it, key developments in economic freedom—deregulation in the US and UK, the collapse of communism in East and Central Europe, and the opening up of the economies of China and India—allowed individuals to surmount government meddling in the economy. From 1980 to 2005, there were marked, world-wide improvements in life expectancy, education, democracy, and living standards as integration into a world economy delivered billions of individuals from poverty, ignorance and squalor.

From 1980?  You know what happened at that time?  The era of Keynesian Big Government came to an end.  For awhile.  With the rise of Margaret Thatcher in the UK.  And the rise of Ronald Reagan in the USA.  Both were adherents to the Austrian school.  And because of that their nations exploded with prosperity.  Thanks to tax cuts.  And deregulation. 

Unfortunately, this began to reverse course around 2005.  Big Government began to return.  And it’s becoming bigger than it ever was.  We see this in declining Western economies.  And financial crises in these same Western economies (in Europe and the United States).  As they are imploding under excessive government spending.  And debt.

A setting of private property rights, free pricing, and accurate profit and loss accounting aligns incentives and communicates information so that individuals realize the mutual gains from trade with one another. Efficient markets are an outcome of a process of discovery, learning, and adjustment, not an assumption going into the analysis. That process, however, operates within political, legal, and social institutions. Those institutions can promulgate policies that block discovery, inhibit learning, and prevent adjustment, causing the market to operate poorly.

So rather than free market ideology being obsolete, what is needed is a reinvigorated ideological vision of the free market economy: a society of free and responsible individuals who have the opportunity to prosper in a market economy based on profit and loss and to live in caring communities. Yes, caring communities. The Adam Smith that wrote The Wealth of Nations also wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and the F. A. Hayek that wrote Individualism and Economic Order also wrote about the corruption of morals in The Fatal Conceit. Our challenge today is to embrace the full scope of free market ideology so as to understand the preconditions under which we can live better together in a world of peace, prosperity, and progress.

Get government out of the private sector.  Let the private sector respond freely to market forces.  Be responsible.  And be kind to others.  Like they told us in kindergarten.

Keynesians don’t like the Masses, they just want to Rule over Them

Anyone looking objectively at the economy can see where the problem lies.  With government.  Their policies didn’t work in the Seventies.  And they’re not working now.  So why are they returning to failed policies of the past?  Because Keynesian policies grow government.  And those in government want to grow government.  For the money and the power.  And to stroke their egos. 

Keynesians are academics.  They have little real-life experience.  They didn’t run businesses.  Make payrolls.  They didn’t sell.  Or live on the other side of regulatory compliance.  Why?  Because they aren’t entrepreneurs.  They don’t have the ability to be creative.  So they elevate themselves above those who are.  To compensate for their inadequacies. 

They prefer privilege.  Entitlement.  Like the aristocracy in the Old World.  Where a good last name was all you needed for wealth and power. 

Just listen to them talk.  Their very words drip with condescension.  They don’t like the masses.  They don’t live with them.  They don’t vacation with them.  They don’t want to have anything to do with them.  Except to rule over them.  The way it should be.  In their world of privilege.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,