1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6033/diversity-yes-force-no/

Diversity, Yes; Force, No

December 18, 2006 by

Yes, Racism can harm minorities in the workforce, but only in the short run. Over the long run, decisions to engage in this kind of activity are punished. One of the reasons for the migration of blacks to labor forces in the cities, beginning soon after emancipation, was because of the existence of more competitive labor markets there. Significant wage differentials among unskilled workers do not start showing up until the application of non-market forces on the workplace, initially with the rise of trade unionism but especially with the passage of minimum wage legislation. FULL ARTICLE

{ 43 comments }

daveweilacher December 18, 2006 at 8:53 am

There is an error in the table for 1930. Also, the table really needs to show stats for 1910 & 1920. A fella wonders if they are excluded because they don’t support the point.

Mark December 18, 2006 at 9:37 am

Why is it, I asked, do West Indian blacks earn higher wages (on average) than American blacks? Because they are more productive (on average), and their relative success suggests that wage differences have other causes than melanin content.

Why is it, I ask , do West Indian blacks win disproportionate amount of 100 meter races at the Olypics?(Ben Johnson, Linford Christe , Donovan Bailey)

It must be superior training methods.

Oh by the way Christopher, are the West Indian blacks you site a random sample?

Mark Brabson December 18, 2006 at 9:51 am

The Davis-Bacon Act and the original National Labor Relations Act did much to harm blacks. Until Taft-Hartley passed in 1947, all unions practiced closed shops, which meant if you wanted a union job, you had to be pre-cleared by the union and get a union card. Since it was almost impossible for blacks to get a union card in decent manufacturing sectors, they were severely harmed. In fact, if you check the Congressional Record, many racial reasons were given for the passage of Davis-Bacon, during debate on that act. Davis-Bacon was passed for the specific goal of excluding blacks from federal contracts. Even today, it still harms blacks, but Union thugs have successfully cowed anybody from trying to repeal it.

Chris Westley December 18, 2006 at 10:20 am

Dave – I just checked my source for 1930 and saw that I mis-transcribed that information. I’ll try to have it changed on the online version, but it should have read for 1930: White Unemployment, 6.59; Black Unemployment, 6.07,; Differential, -.52. The missing years were not presented in the text, but the authors (Vedder and Galloway) do report that the average differential for the period 1890-1930 was .08. The point here is that the differential does not increase until there is significant intervention in labor markets following 1930.

Mark – Your bringing up people like Ben Johnson et al. underscores the point that differences result from skills, not skin color. The point that West Indian blacks have lower rates of unemployment is well-established in the literature. See, for instance, Thomas Sowell’s RACE AND CULTURE.

Gilles P. December 18, 2006 at 11:13 am

I liked your article very much. I have the same problems with my nice intelligent friends be they female or male. I am a trained economist. I am always surprised that most people think they know economic theory better then economists do. To be polite, they think economists are fools. To all of you untrained in economic thinking, I can assure you it takes skills and a lot of thinking to understand problems using economic concepts. THINKING LIKE AN ECONOMIST IS DIFFICULT ( for non-economists of course).

Non-economists have the typical problem I call “limited rationality” i.e they see only the apparent benefits or costs and forget the subtle indirect consequences of any action.

billwald December 18, 2006 at 11:26 am

At least in Washington State most every public statement concerning race and discrimination always boils down to concerning the people who call themselves “African Americans” or equivalent and not even recent very black African immigrants.

“Call themselves” because in the USofA, race is self designated and “African-Americanness” can no longer be determined by visual inspection.

The reason should be obvious but not “pc” to state in writing.

Reactionary December 18, 2006 at 12:19 pm

“Mark – Your bringing up people like Ben Johnson et al. underscores the point that differences result from skills, not skin color.”

How do you explain the fact that all the top Olympic sprinters are black? Or that one tribe in Kenya produces most of the world’s top marathon runners? Or that Ashkenazi Jews have on average the highest IQ’s? Why hasn’t the NFL learned of the benefits of diversity in the tailback position?

“The intervention in labor markets in the form of minimum wage legislation protected racist employers from the market forces that would have otherwise penalized their actions.”

If that were the case, then the racist employers should still be declining to hire blacks in their twenties.

Sloppy article.

Mark December 18, 2006 at 1:03 pm

How do you explain the fact that all the top Olympic sprinters are black?

Not only black but have roots in the West Indies irrespective of the country they represent. (Canada, US, Britian)

Dan Ust December 18, 2006 at 3:11 pm

I wonder about the unemployment numbers being used over that entire period. Was the methodology used the same in 1890, 1930, and 1990? Are the statistics reliable for all the years? How reliable are they for any year? I’m not questioning your point on diversity. In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked at all to find that the unemployment differential worsened under state-enforced diversity.

Sione Vatu December 18, 2006 at 3:30 pm

Quoting: “How do you explain the fact that all the top Olympic sprinters are black?”

Perhaps for the same reason that the most successful heavyweight boxers are black. Might it be that such sports are the available way out of poverty for these people? That is, difficult as they are, they are the best opportunity available?

Some of youse are missing the point of the article by trying to shoot the messenger.

Sione

mark December 18, 2006 at 3:47 pm

Might it be that such sports are the available way out of poverty for these people? That is, difficult as they are, they are the best opportunity available?

Might is be that stuburn refusual to accept facts is the very reason there needs to be affimative action by the government?

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20061122/health/health4.html

Reactionary December 18, 2006 at 3:52 pm

Sione,

“Perhaps for the same reason that the most successful heavyweight boxers are black. Might it be that such sports are the available way out of poverty for these people?”

There’s that. There’s also things like muscle density and lean body mass.

You raise an interesting point. Irish and Italians used boxing to escape poverty, but you rarely see Irish and Italian boxers anymore. Lots of blacks and Hispanics though. But I can’t think of a single Hispanic heavyweight.

Sione Vatu December 18, 2006 at 4:31 pm

mark

So you are of the determinist view?

Sione

Mark December 18, 2006 at 5:20 pm

Sione

I can think of nothing more profound then the reality of the difficulty of breading wild animals in captivity.( Panda’s , White Tigers, etc.)

I can think of nothing more enjoyable then experiences that words can not decribe.

Peter December 18, 2006 at 5:54 pm

I am always surprised that most people think they know economic theory better then economists do. To be polite, they think economists are fools.

And for the vast majority of economists, they’re right. Austrians are the exception, but they’re a somewhat rare breed.

banker December 18, 2006 at 6:41 pm

Japanese use to be really short 20 or more years ago. But ever since (my theory) beef started to be imported in mass the average height of Japanese has shot up tremendously. A substational proportion of males are taller than me and I am from the US.

Sam December 19, 2006 at 12:23 am

I don’t get the part about minimum wage laws barring blacks from racist employers. If the minimum wage suppose was $100 per week and there were two applicants, a white person and a black person. Suppose the black person is productive enough to earn $100 per week but the white person isn’t productive enough and is worth $50. Then surely it would mean that a racist employer, with minimum wage laws would shoot himself in the foot if he hired the white person. Without a minimum wage, if the employer still chose the white person, pay the $50 per week, would lose out on the extra productivity gain.

On the hand, affirmative action laws, where an employer has to have a politically-correct diverse workforce would suffer by hiring different folks for their differences rather than their productivity . . .

Sione December 19, 2006 at 11:11 am

mark

What is your point?

Sione

Lenny December 19, 2006 at 12:26 pm

The cartoon in the Chicago Defender appears under a heading that says “How the South interprets the New Deal” which suggests that, rather than showing an understanding of the true costs, the cartoon was intended to criticize “the south” for its reaction. At the very least it seems the editors tried to spin the cartoon that way.

If this is the case, then it just shows how easy it is for many people to have the evidence in front of them and yet ascribe the wrong root cause; i.e. the policy is not having the desired effects – not because it’s a flawed policy but because “those people” aren’t playing nice.

Som December 19, 2006 at 1:51 pm

I think another great estimate that should be taken into account is the wages of new incoming immigrants that came into the country between the 1900′s up until the 60′s and compare them to the wages of african americans and whites. I’m guessing the wages would be slightly less than the african americans before the 1930′s and slightly more than them after the 1930′s

Assuming, of course, there were incoming immigrants during WWII

Vince Daliessio December 19, 2006 at 2:04 pm

Sam asked;

“I don’t get the part about minimum wage laws barring blacks from racist employers.”

You have to separate minimum wage from employer racism to see the relationship. In a free labor market, the wage offered is equal to the marginal revenue product of labor, period. The productivity of the worker determines the wage across the entire market for his labor. Racism is irrelevant to this, agan, in a free labor market.

Minimum-wage laws were first proposed and passed in nothern cities to keep women and children (whose asking price for their labor was lower) from competing with men, depressing their wages. These were primarily the result of early union efforts.

In the 1920′s, minimum wage and closed-shop laws and policies were again pushed, but since child labor became illegal and women still a minority of the workforce, these policies were designed to keep blacks from the south from competing (using lower asking prices) with white northern labor. Basically these were racist policies on the part of unions and do-gooders, not employers.

After the New Deal began to be put into place, both unions and employers conspired to keep blacks out of the skilled workforce.

Absent minimum wage or forced unionism, a racist employer who refused to hire blacks would find himself losing to less-racist firms that did hire blacks, since in the long run the racist employer’s productivity per labor dollar would be lower.

Similarly, a racist employer who still hired blacks, but paid them less than whites, would soon find his lower-paid blacks being bid away by less-racist employers, norming for productivity.

Both of these unequal situations are self-correcting in a free labor market. Interference in the labor market tends to preserve these inequalities and keep them from correcting.

Reactionary December 19, 2006 at 3:22 pm

“In a free labor market, the wage offered is equal to the marginal revenue product of labor, period.”

And, so the argument goes, if there’s a mandatory minimum wage then there is no market for labor that cannot produce an equivalent marginal revenue. So if blacks are disparately impacted by the minimum wage, it must mean that they are less productive.

“Absent minimum wage or forced unionism, a racist employer who refused to hire blacks would find himself losing to less-racist firms that did hire blacks, since in the long run the racist employer’s productivity per labor dollar would be lower.”

Still not following this. If the minimum wage applies across the board, then the only way the racist employer who only hired whites would be penalized is if he is paying his whites more than the minimum wage. In which event the opportunity still exists for a non-racist employer to underbid a racist employer for black labor.

Francisco Torres December 19, 2006 at 5:51 pm

If the minimum wage suppose was $100 per week and there were two applicants, a white person and a black person. Suppose the black person is productive enough to earn $100 per week but the white person isn’t productive enough and is worth $50

A racist employer would probably hire neither. The racist would decide on racist attitudes if both applicants offered the same level of productivity, let us say, both were worth $50.00

Then surely it would mean that a racist employer, with minimum wage laws would shoot himself in the foot if he hired the white person

Of course, which is why I say he would hire neither, no matter if he was the Grand Dragon of the KKK.

Without a minimum wage, if the employer still chose the white person, pay the $50 per week, would lose out on the extra productivity gain

No, he would not. There is the issue of comparative advantage in this case, especially with such a disparity on expected wage earning. The kind of work for which the employer needs the employee may NOT require a $100 a week employee. The black person would simply be outquoted.

Francisco Torres December 19, 2006 at 6:08 pm

Still not following this. If the minimum wage applies across the board, then the only way the racist employer who only hired whites would be penalized is if he is paying his whites more than the minimum wage.

Reactionary, I do not see how this contradicts what Vince was indicating. I believe this comment is redundant, and not contrary.

In which event the opportunity still exists for a non-racist employer to underbid a racist employer for black labor.

Maybe, but there is no reason to think a racist employer would still have some kind of personal problems with money so as to give it away by paying MORE than the minimum.

Vince’s point is this: without minimum wage, non-racist employers would be FREE to hire blacks at a lower wage, thus underbidding a racist employer. This would mean that in the long run, the level of employment for black and whites would be around the same, even with a disparity on their level of productivity – comparative advantage would be in play within a totally free employment market.

Reactionary December 19, 2006 at 6:19 pm

“Vince’s point is this: without minimum wage, non-racist employers would be FREE to hire blacks at a lower wage, thus underbidding a racist employer.”

But they already are since the minimum wage applies across the board. So unless the white employer is paying whites more than the minimum wage AND more than their productivity merits, in which event he should eventually go out of business, it’s difficult to see how the minimum wage is keeping blacks out of the labor market.

At the least, Westley’s thesis requires several assumptions, including that blacks are generally less productive. Fortunately he covers himself by attributing it to, what else, white racism.

Tom Rapheal December 19, 2006 at 7:03 pm

Reactionary: Blacks at the time of the minimum wage law WERE LESS PROUDUCTIVE. Miniumum wage laws prevented employers from hiring less productive blacks for less wages. Even the productive blacks were intimitdated and prohibited by white unions.

Reactionary, are you saying that blacks and whites of the time had equal productivity on average, or that the great majority of the empoylers were racist and cold not run a bussiness well? Both seem to be redidiculous statements. Excuse spelling

N. Joseph Potts December 19, 2006 at 8:10 pm

EmployEEs of a company tend to be more racist than their employers (because they generally feel more comfortable working, communicating, and even socializing with others of their kind). Much employer behavior actually arises from this well known and widespread preference on the part of employees.

None of this actually overcomes any of the points of the article – it is offered to improve the precision of just where (as between employers and employees) racism (or anti-diversity) arises. Most employers tending to hire all one kind of person to work in a particular place or function are just trying to keep the peace and minimize expensive race riots in the workplace, even while improving communications (people of similar ethnic and linguistic backgrounds work together more effectively, as illustrated in the tower of Babel).

When the marginal productivity of individual employees is rendered moot, at least in a range, as by Minimum Wage legislation, group factors like these come to the fore. EmployERs get a bad rap for racism, or anti-diversity.

Vince Daliessio December 19, 2006 at 9:33 pm

Reactionary said, after my comment;

“”In a free labor market, the wage offered is equal to the marginal revenue product of labor, period.”

And, so the argument goes, if there’s a mandatory minimum wage then there is no market for labor that cannot produce an equivalent marginal revenue. So if blacks are disparately impacted by the minimum wage, it must mean that they are less productive.”

YES, at the TIME, many blacks were less productive than competing whites. Additionally, racism helped keep the bidding low, making their POTENTIAL productivity relative to their labor HIGHER. But this isn’t what I stated, I stated that the wage offered, accepted and the worker retained for blacks, at the time, coming off the plantations and into the cities was lower. They were demanding fewer dollars per unit output than whites. White union members correctly saw this as price competition and proceeded to have it outlawed by the institution of the minimum wage.

“”ABSENT THE MINIMUM WAGE OR FORCED UNIONISM, a racist employer who refused to hire blacks would find himself losing to less-racist firms that did hire blacks, since in the long run the racist employer’s productivity per labor dollar would be lower.”

Still not following this. If the minimum wage applies across the board, then the only way the racist employer who only hired whites would be penalized is if he is paying his whites more than the minimum wage. In which event the opportunity still exists for a non-racist employer to underbid a racist employer for black labor.”

The minimum wage is PURPOSELY SET above the MRP of low-skilled black / female / child / Mexican labor to put / keep the (for now) lower-priced / lower-productivity workers out. This traps them at a low-productivity level, the employer is trapped in the short run because he will lose money paying the minimum wage to individuals whose MRP is < the minimum wage. The workers with wages above the current minimum wage are protected from competition from lower-priced individuals.

Basically, minimum wage laws, if set high enough to be effective, ‘work’ by protecting the jobs of productivity-stagnant current workers, and preventing the aquisition of needed skills by low-productivity workers by keeping their labor off the market, often forever.The minimum wage is THE most racist, sexist, ageist device known to economic man.

Francisco Torres December 19, 2006 at 11:41 pm

“But they already are since the minimum wage applies across the board. So unless the white employer is paying whites more than the minimum wage AND more than their productivity merits, in which event he should eventually go out of business, it’s difficult to see how the minimum wage is keeping blacks out of the labor market.”

Not all. Only the inexperienced. It is still a game of “Who do you prefer” when it comes to an inexperienced youth – who had access to the better schools? Who had access to the better homes, or family, or was out of trouble? The minimum wage STILL outbids the apparently less productive people.

Reactionary December 20, 2006 at 7:50 am

Vince and Francisco,

You and the author of this article are making sociologic arguments, not economic arguments. I started out at minimum wage with no skills other than a desire to work and learn. I and other white teenagers moved upward, so why can’t blacks at the same rate? Your answer, as it must be, given your pre-determined conclusion and the way the statistics are coming out, is white racism. Thus, your “economic” argument rests on several sociological assumptions. Now that’s fine so far as it goes, but you need to drop the dispassionate economist act.

Sam December 20, 2006 at 8:41 am

To Vince and Fransisco:

Aren’t both your arguments both seems to be presuming that folks are all equally productive if they fall below the productivity level required to make genuinely make minimum wage? It could also be argued that even if were there no minimum wage law there’d still be folks who are that unproductive to a particular job that they aren’t worth hiring at all.

Francisco Torres December 20, 2006 at 10:52 am

Your answer, as it must be, given your pre-determined conclusion and the way the statistics are coming out, is white racism.

No, it is called a “subjective value judgement”. If faced with the problem of an artificial cap on wages, an employer can only rely on his or her value judgement for other factors besides the value for the money. If some people are predispossed to think that whites are more productive, for whatever reason, then that person will only hire whites. Is this racism? Maybe, maybe not, but the result would be the same: the employer leaves out other non-white people because him or her would go with what he or she knows or what he or she is familiar. This explains why, for example, the unemployment level of African and Mideastern immigrants in France is very high: faced with a *very* high minimum-wage, employers have to go with what they know, and that would be French nationals. This even if those immigrants were more than willing to work for a lower wage than the official cap. This also explains why the unemployment level of undocumented immigrants in the US is NOT high – because employers circunvent the law in order to pay lower wages. If made to pay the minimum, the perceived value of the immigrants would not be enough to justify the higher wage and thus the employer would not hire them.

I am not making a sociological argument here, Reactionary. I am looking at this entirely from an economic point of view, because remember: VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE. The point of the article is that, taking out the minimum wage, employers that WERE racist would find themselves at a disadvantage if hiring only whites, instead of hiring those that are willing to work for less. Without a minimum wage, it would not be profitable to be racist. WITH the minimum wage, however, it would not matter if the employer is racist or not.

Reactionary December 20, 2006 at 11:17 am

“Without a minimum wage, it would not be profitable to be racist.”

Well, that rests on the assumption that employers are paying whites more than the minimum wage AND more than their productivity merits, because since the minimum wage applies across the board, it is still possible for non-racist employers to exploit the racist employer’s refusal to hire blacks. It follows that it is at least possible for black unemployment to be attributable to other factors, such as their lower productivity. In this particular instance, the Austrians seem to be deriving a conclusion from statistics, a process they otherwise reject as inapt.

Your statement also begs these questions. If I decided as an NFL team owner only to hire blacks at tailback, would I go out of business? If I decided as a banker or jeweler only to hire Ashkenazi Jews, would I go out of business?

Reactionary December 20, 2006 at 11:23 am

“This also explains why the unemployment level of undocumented immigrants in the US is NOT high – because employers circunvent the law in order to pay lower wages.”

And here is another problem. Employers could do the same thing with blacks, yet unemployment among blacks is high and unemployment among illegal immigrants is low. Again, you are going to have to resort to sociological arguments, not economic ones, in order to keep this blog politically correct.

billwald December 20, 2006 at 11:45 am

Another reason for the unemployment difference is that African-Americans have a lock on the welfare system and on do-gooder charities. Why? Because white people are still paying restitution for slavery. Most every time the press reports “racial” problems the subject is most always African Americans.

Other “racial” groups do not have this problem. Illegal Mexicans can find jobs and send $hundreds back to their families in Mexico. A friend is part of management in a small iron foundry. He says that they can only hire Hispanics because neither white nor black people want to do the work. It is a union shop!

African-American people have a defective culture which didn’t exist before 1964. (I’ll be happy to explain why.) Every year for the last 30 or so years the African-American community in Seattle holds “Buy Black Week.” The purpose is to encourage black people to patronize black businesses.

This boggles the mind. There has never been a buy Chinese (Jewish, Korean, Mexican, Japanese, Italian, Swedish . . . ) week in the history of the world! Lynnwood, WA (just north of of Seattle) has a humongus Korean community. I just noticed a large Korean community in the south end of Tacoma. Far as I know, there is only one Korean person elected to Washington’s state or county govts. None of the do-goodersever mention that our Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese . . .citizens are vastly under-represented in out state governments but a big deal is made over every African-American candidate. Apparently African-American people have finally discovered that they can vote themselves money but only if they hold public office.

The Korean People? They are to busy building small businesses, becomming professsionals, and helping their children to earn the awards and scholarships to mess with politics.

GunderDog December 20, 2006 at 10:51 pm

I think this is a really interesting and compelling article. While I see how in theory if there were no minimim wage blacks would have been better off, this arguement assumes that there were sufficient “non racist employers” that would hire the blacks at market wages. If all the employers are racists, what then? If only 5% of the employers are not racist, I suspect it would take centuries for those one to real the benefits of their hiring practices and force their recist competitors out of business. And if you look at the large corporate employers (who were involved with the forced unionization scheme), very few were progressive on race. In other words, I think there would have been (and is) some justification for government intervention to combat racism, although what that is I do not know.

I know there is no data, but if you look at people like Henry Ford, Walt Disney, and many other captains of their industries they clearly beleived blacks were inferior and would only hire them for the lowest paying jobs.

In short, I agree that government intervention made things a lot worse, but I don’t see how racism would have just withered away if we let those in power continue to be brutally racist. The remedy should be something along the lines of protecting the rights of all individuals rather than implementing some social management scheme.

Finally, and I don’t mean to start a flame war here, but too many of the people advocating this line of reasoning in the public discourse are at best ignorant and at worst racist. I am not saying billwald is racist, but please get your facts straight. Blacks do not have a lock on welfare – the majority of welfare recipients are not black. Arts organizations recieve the most donations, not welfare programs for blacks. This article just showed in statistics how massive government intervention has screwed black people. Given this history, on top of Jim Crow and people’s racist attitudes (which granted is a lot better now than 40 years ago) I think it’s understandable that some of them are on welfare. We can debate what the best action (or no action) is, but I think we should have some sympathy for the victims. They did not bring it on themselves.

Sione December 21, 2006 at 2:01 am

In my visits to the USA I was surprised to see how persistent racism is there. For instance I was with an American associate (white fella) who on noticing my interest in an American car said, “Yeah, but look whose driving it.” The driver was a black guy. Then my associate got all embarrassed and mumbled somthing about good ‘uns and bad ‘uns. I told him he was demonstrating his lack of intelligence and should be ashamed of himself for being such a dunderhead (not for the reasons he thought as it transpired).

There is a fixation with matters of race, religion and sex there. It’s a problem that needs to be faced square on. Laws and regulations delay that from ever occurring.

I did not find race,sex and religious problems to be as common in Europe. They certainly are not such a big deal in Australia or New Zealand or most of the Pacific (although there are those who profit from stirring up trouble by making big claims). Not in China either.

Governments weild power and are seen as an authority in many matters. Many people defer to what their govts decide or promote. It’s a default mode for them. Easy to do.

First step is to eliminate govt regulations and laws such as those described in the article. Those laws are racist. How can it be expected that rational thinking and acting could be derived from such nonsense? Next is to let people decide for themselves what they want to do. If they want to exclude rational decisions from certain aspects of their lives, let them. They’ll be the ones who ultimately pay the cost. Leave the rest of us to get on with life as it ought to be lived.

Sione

lean muscle x December 2, 2009 at 10:16 am

this is some great information you have here thanks for this

chad bowen December 30, 2009 at 6:27 am

this is a great article look forward to reading more great work

circlebill January 10, 2010 at 12:15 am

The article is a lovely exercise in academic theory. The author is clearly too naive to make a legitimate analysis of employment situations that are affected by white racism. In every year of the U.S. Census, whites have higher average salaries than Blacks– WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF EDUCATION! How can this be? It’s ludicrous to try to pretend that higher productivity is the only reason for a wage differential. Though unstated and carefully cloaked, employment race discrimination is a standard business practice even TODAY!!! It’s routine for a racist employer to hire Blacks and other non-whites for low pay jobs and whites for high pay positions. There might be a few non-white tokens thrown in for show, but the basic formula is the same as in plantations of the old racist south.

It is a grave fallacy to try to claim that productivity is the sole or even the main arbiter of income. Are investment bankers highly paid because of high productivity? To say they are would be laughable! It would be just as ridiculous to claim high paid lawyers are paragons of production. The author may be highly educated, but his ignorance is towering! He needs to learn more about the real world and rethink his flawed conclusions.

Vestidos Noche September 10, 2010 at 5:58 pm

Hi, I have been lately in the web blog several times lately. I simply thought to say hi and thanks for the tips given.

Alfonzo Barkhurst January 29, 2011 at 7:16 am

Hi there, You’ve performed an excellent job. I will definitely digg it and in my opinion suggest to my friends. I am confident they will be benefited from this site.

Kemberly Augustave April 14, 2011 at 8:01 pm

I as well as my friends appeared to be analyzing the great helpful tips located on the blog and then unexpectedly got a terrible suspicion I had not expressed respect to the web site owner for those secrets

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: