Rising number of overdoses amid dim job prospects for Millenials

Moonglow · May 10, 2018

JakeStarkey said: ↑

james M has unions in his nightmares all the time.
Click to expand...

He probably has wet dreams about school teachers.

Moonglow · May 10, 2018

james M said: ↑

yes liberals are destroying our society. We know that, And??????????
Click to expand...

Only because there is an absence of anything resembling conservatives being in existence.

Reiver · May 11, 2018

JakeJ said: ↑

Raise tuition 68% as has happened or raise it 300% - doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Except to the widening participation agenda...

james M · May 11, 2018

Moonglow said: ↑

Only because there is an absence of anything resembling conservatives being in existence.
Click to expand...

says a clown with his pants down? Most intellectuals would agree Freedom Caucus is conservative

JakeStarkey · May 11, 2018

Moonglow said: ↑

Only because there is an absence of anything resembling conservatives being in existence.
Click to expand...

james M will respond with "with about the Freedom Caucus, man?" That they are not allowed to set policy is jimmy M's problem.

LafayetteBis · May 11, 2018

HODGE-PODGE

kazenatsu said: ↑

I agree that most of his posts are nonsense and most of them deserve to go to never land. However, the 30 m illegal claim may be another matter. I know there were a little over 1 m illegals coming every year for over 25 years.

Sad to say, but I think that james M's estimate may be more accurate than what everybody has been told.

Or maybe they're not illegal anymore because they've later become legalized.
Click to expand...

And so what?

America has been inviting in plenty of foreigners, starting with the Brits and French in the 17th century. We are a hodge-podge of peoples - always have been, always will be.

Moreover, let's have a Fact Check (from here): Do Undocumented Immigrants Overuse Government Benefits?
Excerpt:

The Facts:

Unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for most major federally-funded safety net programs. Key safety net programs, including the cash welfare program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), and the means-tested disability program Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are available only to “qualified” immigrants and citizens (see here for a review). Undocumented immigrants, along with some legal immigrants, are typically in the “unqualified” category unless they are victims of abuse or trafficking. Undocumented immigrants are also excluded from most federal health programs. They are prohibited from non-emergency Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Medicare program. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act or to participate in the ACA insurance exchanges. They may be able to privately purchase insurance through their employer or on the non-group market. An estimated 40 percent of non-elderly undocumented immigrants have no health insurance. According to a study by the CATO Institute, low-income non-citizens (documented and undocumented combined) have lower participation rates in safety net programs than low-income citizens, in part due to eligibility restrictions for the undocumented.

Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits even though many contribute to the system. Many undocumented immigrants work in the formal sector and contribute to the social security trust fund. Estimates suggest that up to $12 billion per year are contributed by undocumented immigrants and their employers. Most undocumented immigrants will never draw from the system. One hypothetical exception is that if the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program lasts long enough and participants pay into the system, they would eventually be eligible for benefits, but the first payouts in this hypothetical eventuality are nearly three decades away. Other immigrants who transition to legal status can also collect benefits based on their contribution history, even if some of their contributions were made while unauthorized.

There are some federal programs that serve those in need, regardless of immigration status. Programs that serve undocumented immigrants include school meal programs, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Head Start, and various in-kind emergency services. Undocumented immigrants are also eligible for Emergency Medicaid. This program typically covers acute medical situations including childbirth but not longer-term treatment for chronic conditions, even if they are life-threatening. The services provided vary by state. Emergency Medicaid is estimated to cost about $2 billion per year, well less than 1 percent of the overall Medicaid budget, and most of that cost is thought to be attributable to unauthorized immigrants.

State and local governments disproportionately bear the burden of supporting undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are legally required to have access to K-12 public school, and almost all K-12 education funding comes from state and local governments. The share of children who are undocumented immigrants and attend Kindergarten through 12th grade at public and private schools is relatively small, making up about 1.3 percent of total enrollment in 2014 (about 725,000 students) according to a study by the Pew Research Center. However, another 5.9 percent of students who are U.S. citizens have at least one undocumented parent. Some states also provide other benefits to undocumented immigrants, including in-state tuition to undocumented students and state-funded safety net programs. Authors of a National Academy of Sciences report note that, because immigrants tend to pay income and payroll taxes to the federal government, but tend to use services provided by states and localities, their overall fiscal impact is unevenly distributed. (See the related question of whether immigrants cost native-born U.S. taxpayers money.)

Many unauthorized immigrants have dependent children or a spouse who are citizens and who may qualify for public benefits. About three quarters of children of undocumented immigrants are citizens. A study using 2014 data estimated that about 40 percent of all adult undocumented immigrants live with U.S. citizen minor or adult children. Therefore, although undocumented immigrants are not eligible for most benefits, their households often receive support. Studies which look at household-level benefit receipts have higher estimated rates for immigrant households than studies that focus on individual level support (for instance, compare this study to this one).

Immigration enforcement activity reduces the degree to which undocumented immigrants access benefits for their families. The local enforcement environment matters to benefit participation. For example, in my research looking at immigration enforcement increases in the 1990s, I found that immigrants in areas with elevated enforcement are discouraged from accessing Medicaid benefits on behalf of their citizen children.

Click to expand...

Being an illegal immigrant is no cheery situation in the US. Some on this forum are making a mountain out of a mole-hill - without the slightest bit of factual evidence to support their accusations.

Migrants, illegal or not, are what made this country since the get go ...

LafayetteBis · May 11, 2018

kazenatsu said: ↑

Why did they only select the white countries on that list?
(And two Asian countries that just so happen to have the highest IQ levels in Asia)

If you can, please show ONE, just ONE, country that has a non-white, non-Asian (chinese, japanese, korean) population higher than the US that also has a lower child mortality rate, then I will take you seriously.
Click to expand...

Silly proposition. The US and Canada are both immigrant countries.

The EU - even with the present massive migration from the Middle-east and Middle Africa - will not have the mix of migrants that have populated North America.

And of course Black Africa will have higher mortality rates. Such rates exist wherever extreme poverty exists as well.

The higher child mortality rates are not in either North America or Europe and that is due to better economies there ...

LafayetteBis · May 12, 2018

LafayetteBis said: ↑

HODGE-PODGE
Click to expand...

And following the above link given: Do Immigrants Cost Native-Born Taxpayers Money? - excerpt:

The Issue:
Immigration was a key issue during last year's presidential election and debates regarding both the number and the types of immigrants that should be allowed to come to the United States continue. An important factor in this consideration is whether immigration places a burden on taxpayers. Those who want less immigration argue that immigrants cost more in government-provided benefits than they pay in taxes, in effect raising taxes for native-born taxpayers to cover the net cost. But are immigrants costly to native-born taxpayers?

The Facts:

Over the past two decades, the immigrant population in the U.S. has grown faster than the native-born population, increasing the share of immigrants in the total population and in the country's labor force.The foreign-born population was 42.3 million in 2014, representing about 13 percent of the U.S. population, up from 24.5 million and 9 percent of the population in 1995. Similarly, the portion of the labor force that is foreign-born has grown from 11 percent to about 16 percent in the past two decades. Immigrants and their children are expected to account for an important share of future workforce growth.

The question of whether immigrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in government expenditures is complicated. It goes beyond the hot button issue of whether immigrants, particularly undocumented ones, abuse the social safety net. In addition to looking at how much immigrants access these services, a broader picture takes into account all government expenditures at the federal, state and local levels, including items such as defense spending, interest payment on the federal debt, and public education, among others. It also takes into account how much everyone pays in taxes. Even people whose income and wealth is low enough that they pay no income, property, or other wealth-based taxes pay sales taxes and user fees that fund government services. Moreover, The United States is a nation that runs budget deficits. This means that, on average, everyone receives more in public expenditures than they pay in taxes. Whether this is more pronounced in the case of immigrants than the native born is the more relevant question.

At any given point in time, the biggest determinant of net fiscal impact (taxes paid less benefits received) for any individual is their age. Children and older persons who are not likely to be working and receive education and health benefits, among others, are net beneficiaries of government expenditures. People in working ages are net taxpayers. This is true for all groups (see chart). Drawing from a 2017 report of the National Academies of Science, the chart compares the net fiscal impacts of different immigration generations by age group, including the immigrants themselves (the 1st generation); those born in the U.S. with one or more foreign-born parent (the 2nd generation)—these are the children of immigrants; and the rest of the native population or those with both parents US-born(the 3rd+ generation). For children, there is not much difference in the cost to the government across the groups. In the working ages, immigrants are less fiscally beneficial than native-born working age persons because they earn less on average and thus pay less in taxes. This is in part due to the fact that, on average, immigrants have tended to have less education than natives. The working-age children of immigrants (the 2nd generation) on the other hand, are the highest net taxpayers of all. They have on average higher levels of college attainment than both their immigrant parents and the rest of the native-born and are less likely to be in poverty. However, even within similar education groups, second generation persons have higher average incomes and are thus paying more in taxes and receiving less in benefits than immigrants or those with 2 native-born parents. In the older ages, immigrants and their children (the 1st and 2nd generations) are less expensive as they age than native-born elderly (the 3rd+ generation), mostly because they get less in old-age benefits.

Most immigrants are in their working ages and so, viewed as individuals, are average net taxpayers. Since they tend to arrive to the United States as adults, it means that the U.S. did not have to invest in their education, but will benefit from the taxes of their adult earnings. However, this also means they are more likely to have dependent children present, who receive public investments, mostly in education. Thus, largely because of the demography, looking at immigrants and their dependent children together at one moment in time, the fiscal picture is less favorable for immigrants than for the native born. As we explained earlier, our budget deficit means that everyone receives more in government benefits than they pay in taxes; but the ratio of expenditures-to-taxes is less favorable for immigrants than it is for native-born persons. Since more educated immigrants tend to have higher earnings and thus make greater tax contributions, some have suggested changing the U.S. immigration system towards a points system that favors more highly educated immigrants similar to Canada and Australia. However, it is important to note that the gap between immigrants and natives in terms of their fiscal burden has narrowed over the last two decades in the United States as immigrant education has risen in absolute terms as well as relative to the native born. (See this Econofact memo for details on the increase in education of immigrants since 2000 and the contribution of immigrants towards productivity and economic growth).

Because a person's fiscal impact varies so much across their lifetime and carries on to the next generation, it makes sense to look at the fiscal costs and benefits of immigration over a longer time horizon.The National Academy Report addresses this by providing estimates of the fiscal impact over the next 75 years of an additional immigrant entering the United States, including the costs and benefits of his or her descendants. The estimates vary depending on how much education we think a future immigrant will bring, and what future U.S. fiscal policy will be. If immigrant flows return to the lower education composition of the past and if the U.S. continues to run large budget deficits, then the fiscal impact of an immigrant is going to be negative. Both of these scenarios are unlikely, however: overall global education is rising, meaning sending countries have fewer low education persons as potential immigrants to the U.S., and continuation of the current large U.S. deficits is unlikely to be a fiscally sustainable path over the course of the next 75 years. Thus, in the more likely future scenario where immigrant flows remain at least as well educated as they are today, and government lowers deficits, the future impact of one additional immigrant is strongly positive, with the government accruing an estimated net present value of $173,000 to $259,000 (see here for details).

How we account for government spending on items that do not necessarily cost the government more to provide when the population increases affects the estimates. The difference in the estimate of $173,000 versus $259,000 in net present value added per immigrant is in the accounting for expenditures on what economists call public goods – expenditures whose level does not increase with a larger population. Defense spending is a prime example, and indeed accounts for the major portion of such expenditures, as well as a large share of federal expenditures overall. If we do not consider these expenditures as a cost of an additional immigrant, the immigrant has a more positive effect on fiscal balance – the higher number – and the immigrant actually helps native-born taxpayers by sharing the fixed cost of these expenditures over a slightly larger population. If we consider these costs as rising with another immigrant arrival, then there is a less positive effect on fiscal balance – the lower but still positive number. Note that both numbers do include the positive impact that an immigrant would have on helping to pay interest on the national debt. The analysis does not include this as a cost to a new immigrant arrival in any scenario because he or she was not in the country at the time the debt was accrued, and so cannot be considered to increase its size or the associated interest expense.

Where there do seem to be significant net costs of immigration is at the state and local level where education is mainly funded. While the investment in the education of the children of immigrants is costly to current taxpayers, they go on to enter the labor force, and become high net taxpayers in the future. However, the costs of educating the children of immigrants is paid for by state and local taxes, but the later benefits mainly accrue to the federal government in the form of income taxes. This imbalance could be addressed through greater transfers of funds from the federal government to those states with large immigrant populations, which would address the net burden on states, while still leaving a net benefit at the federal level.

Attempts like this to estimate the net fiscal impact of immigration do not include any indirect effects immigration has on the economy. If, as research suggests, immigration raises productivity, then it contributes to faster economic growth, which raises tax revenues. Estimates of immigrant fiscal impact that do not include this effect should be considered a lower bound, at least in this respect.

Click to expand...

Most will not have the courage to read the above full-length explanation of how "Immigrants are NOT a burden on other Americans" over time. Their net-benefit is seen clearly when one considers the complicated set of questions asked and their answers.

But, hating immigrants "who take OUR jobs" is the sort of yapping that happens amongst ignorant masses around the world - and especially on the Rabid Right that collects such angst and exploits it. We humans can be very selfish people. But the statistical analyses in no way support that expressed angst ...

kazenatsu · May 12, 2018

It only takes 1 bad apple in the barrel to completely negate the meager contributions of 10 others. For example, it's often claimed a single homeless person can end up costing a city like LA $80,000 annually.
Do you know how much thefts and having to hire security guards cost businesses? Or more police, or the costs to the court system.

Here's something I've never seen any study take into account: the amount of money it costs to put their children in school.
And there's a very good reason those studies wouldn't want to touch this with a 10-foot poll. In California for example it costs $14,000 to put one child in school per year. When you're talking about a family with 4 or 5 children...

You have a lot of college grads in California working in Starbucks, or still stuck in temporary work years after they graduate, to say nothing of the fact that the majority of students will not go on to get a college degree. One questions then how all this education money is going to be repaid.

Also, when one takes into account services provided by government, the bottom 40% of income earners don't make any effective net contribution:
https://www.mercatus.org/publications/federal-tax-system-more-progressive-you-think

That means adding more lower income people is not likely to increase government disposable income.

kazenatsu · May 12, 2018

Interesting that Bernie Sanders wants to spend money to create more jobs for young people:

https://mic.com/articles/183121/bernie-sanders-youth-jobs-bill-unemployment#.NdeGUmO5w

LafayetteBis said: ↑

But, hating immigrants "who take OUR jobs" is the sort of yapping that happens amongst ignorant masses around the world
Click to expand...

Please explain how that belief is compatible with the belief that government needs to spend billions to create jobs for young people.

Unless you disagree with Bernie (which I suspect you don't).

I don't know, it seems there is a vast degree of intellectual dissonance going on.

LafayetteBis · May 12, 2018

Moonglow said: ↑

There is no shortage of job opportunities awaiting one that gets off dey azz and just dood it....Jobs don't come looking for yous...
Click to expand...

In fact, they do.

Just go on any employment internet-site and the serious jobs will be there nowadays.

What likely wont be there is work at the Minimum Wage of $7.25/hour. Those are in local newspapers because they are more-or-less either seasonal or non-permanent. They are also jobs clearly below the poverty-threshold that the Census Bureau estimates at $12/hour* ...

*At twelve-bucks an hour, your BigMac will cost you 30-cents more. BFD.

LafayetteBis · May 12, 2018

kazenatsu said: ↑

It only takes 1 bad apple in the barrel to completely negate the meager contributions of 10 others. For example, it's often claimed a single homeless person can end up costing a city like LA $80,000 annually.
Do you know how much thefts and having to hire security guards cost businesses? Or more police, or the costs to the court system.
Click to expand...

What is "often claimed" is for twerps. It's most often "propaganda" serving as particular Rightist or Leftist purpose. What's important is in the numbers, and there is plenty of research out there that gets at the truth.

Try reading some of it ...

kazenatsu said: ↑

Here's something I've never seen any study take into account: the amount of money it costs to put their children in school. And there's a very good reason those studies wouldn't want to touch this with a 10-foot poll. In California for example it costs $14,000 to put one child in school per year. When you're talking about a family with 4 or 5 children...
Click to expand...

Why aren't you bitchin'-'n-moaning about the US Discretionary Budget that gives away just less than half to only one agency - The DoD (Department of Death 'n Destruction)?

Where have we hidden the justifying fundamental logic of that colossal budget imbalance? As I was taught a long, long time ago as an student of economics. The trade-off policy decisions in America regarding the National Budget always come down to these three questions:
*Guns or Butter?
*Guns or Butter?
*Guns or Butter?

My point: Why not try less guns and more butter? With the savings, buy more bread for more hungry bellies! (Meaning free Tertiary Education! Duhhhhh ...)

kazenatsu said: ↑

You have a lot of college grads in California working in Starbucks, or still stuck in temporary work years after they graduate, to say nothing of the fact that the majority of students will not go on to get a college degree. One questions then how all this education money is going to be repaid.
Click to expand...

By the same manner that the US Budget was financed during one of the worst economic periods since the Great Depression, which was called the Great Recession. And what was that? It was by expanding the National Debt, as shown here:

We've been both EXPANDING THE NATIONAL DEBT and EXPANDING THE DOD BUDGET DURING THOSE 40 YEARS SINCE 1976!

No other country on earth deems itself necessary to mount a global effort to protect itself from both real and imaginary "enemies of the state". And, at the other end, Switzerland gets along just fine with a "stay at home" National Guard and no "standing army" to speak of.

I am saying, our solution is somewhere in between. Because we should not be funding "Defense of the World Order" consuming half the National Discretionary Budget, but educating our children for this Information Age that is upon us.

kazenatsu said: ↑

It only takes 1 bad apple in the barrel to completely negate the meager contributions of 10 others. For example, it's often claimed a single homeless person can end up costing a city like LA $80,000 annually.

Do you know how much thefts and having to hire security guards cost businesses? Or more police, or the costs to the court system.
Click to expand...

And I am telling you that those deaths and crimes are a result of "lack of education". Just look at the Ignorance-Level that populates our prisons today!

Educate people to obtain a decent jobs, and they wont enter your house to "make a living"!

To wit, from here: Inmate Education Levels

Prisoners are significantly less educated than the general population of adults. When looking at the educational level of inmates, it is clear there is a deep need for education.

It’s twice as common for inmates to have only a grade eight education or less, and a high percentage of prisoners don’t have a high school diploma or equivalent or a college education. Learning disabilities are common and prisoners with an ethnic minor background tend to have lower education levels.
Click to expand...

kazenatsu said: ↑

Here's something I've never seen any study take into account: the amount of money it costs to put their children in school. And there's a very good reason those studies wouldn't want to touch this with a 10-foot poll. In California for example it costs $14,000 to put one child in school per year. When you're talking about a family with 4 or 5 children...
Click to expand...

Why aren't you bitchin'-'n-moaning about the US Discretionary Budget that gives away just less than half to only one agency - The DoD (Department of Death)?

Where have we hidden the fundamental justifying-logic of that colossal imbalance?

kazenatsu said: ↑

Also, when one takes into account services provided by government, the bottom 40% of income earners don't make any effective net contribution

That means adding more lower income people is not likely to increase government disposable income.
Click to expand...

Ask yourself why they don't contribute? Ever bother to look at the education-level of the nation's imprisoned population? Nope!

See it for yourself here, Prison Education Levels.

And you think we are spending too much money educating our youth. Typical Replicant rant given the blatant facts of the matter ...

LafayetteBis · May 12, 2018

Moonglow said: ↑

To live is to suffer~Fritz Lang.
Click to expand...

You've forgot the best part: To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering.

The meaning is there, we're just too lazy to look for it.

And any one who thinks the meaning is not worth the search is an idiot in the dark, bumping into walls and tripping over the furniture of life ...

JakeStarkey · May 12, 2018

Ignorance informs an idiot in the dark, encouraging him to bump into walls and trip over the furniture of life.

LafayetteBis · May 12, 2018

JakeStarkey said: ↑

Ignorance informs an idiot in the dark, encouraging him to bump into walls and trip over the furniture of life.
Click to expand...

Ignorance puts an idiot into the darkness ...

james M · May 12, 2018

LafayetteBis said: ↑

And you think we are spending too much money educating our youth...
Click to expand...

yes obviously!! the govt is involved so the efficiency is positively soviet. We spend the most in the world to produce the dumbest kids in the world. Its much like health care. When liberal govt is involved the results are soviet!
prison/education issue is simple. You don't get out till you get an good free online education.

kazenatsu · May 12, 2018

Depression skyrockets in teens, young adults

LafayetteBis · May 13, 2018

kazenatsu said: ↑

Depression skyrockets in teens, young adults
Click to expand...

Yep, they awaken one day, after high-school is over, to a job-market that doesn't need them. And they are too poor to go into post-secondary schooling to get the necessary credentials. And if even they do, most do not finish the course.

Nothing strange at all in the US, the only place left amongst modern market-economies where an education costs an arm-and-a-leg.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) quote:

Educational attainment refers to the highest level of education completed (e.g., a high school diploma or equivalency certificate, an associate's degree, a bachelor's degree, or a master's degree). Between 2000 and 2016, educational attainment rates among 25- to 29-year-olds increased. During this time, the percentage who had received at least a high school diploma or its equivalent increased from 88 to 92 percent, the percentage with an associate's or higher degree increased from 38 to 46 percent, the percentage with a bachelor's or higher degree increased from 29 to 36 percent, and the percentage with a master's or higher degree increased from 5 to 9 percent.
Click to expand...

The good news is the increase from 38 to 46% that have finally understood a post-secondary degree is a necessary first-step beyond high-school to get the credentials that permit them to find a good-job.

And the rest of America needs to understand that just like high-school graduates at 92% of total, the post-secondary schooling achievement should be at the exactly the same level or more. (Even out of high-school without a degree, kids wake up to the ugliness of the world around them if they have no qualifications - and then turn to seeking them.)

My Point: A high-school degree just aint enough to get a decent job nowadays. (Moreover, those jobs that don't need even secondary-schooling are going to get automated and run by robots anyway.) Moreover, post-secondary education must be made free, gratis and for nothing in order to encompass all students seeking job-necessary credentials ...

kazenatsu · May 13, 2018

LafayetteBis said: ↑

And they are too poor to go into post-secondary schooling to get the necessary credentials. And if even they do, most do not finish the course.
Click to expand...

You do realize the barrier isn't just poverty or whether they can afford it. The plain cold hard fact is that the majority of kids are not college material.

Some of them might attempt college, but then they don't pass some courses and it takes them a lot longer to finish it, if they ever finish at all. For someone with say, a learning disability, they could just give up altogether.

I find it rather condescending to tell them all that they have to go to college.
With all this pressure on them (it's enough pressure even for those who do have a college degree trying to enter the workforce) it's no wonder many are suffering from stress-related disorders and depression.
And then to top it all off the burden of student loans, which many of them will be unable to repay.

LafayetteBis · May 13, 2018

kazenatsu said: ↑

You do realize the barrier isn't just poverty or whether they can afford it. The plain cold hard fact is that the majority of kids are not college material..
Click to expand...

Post-secondary education includes vocational skills the training for which takes only a few-months to half a year.

Whatever the age-context, our people need skills - and more and more are finding it very hard to shift from no-skills jobs to other no-skills jobs because such jobs are being automated wherever they can be. (The cost of robotics has come down drastically since automated car-painting robots started in the mid-1990s ...

History lesson from here: The History of Robotics in the Automotive Industry

Prototype industrial robots were deployed in General Motors facilities as early as 1961. These first robots mainly performed spot welding. Their success soon attracted attention from Ford.

In 1969, the Stanford Arm was developed. With six degrees of freedom, it was capable of tasks earlier robots couldn’t perform.

In 1974, it was followed by the Silver Arm from MIT. Using embedded pressure-sensitive sensors and a microprocessor, this new arm was far more versatile. It opened the way for a years-long robot boom with 30% year-on-year growth.

By the 1980s, billions of dollars were spent by companies worldwide to automate basic tasks in their assembly plants. Although automation system deployment did dip in the 1990s, innovative technology has caused it to rebound.
Click to expand...

Robotics in manufacturing is nothing new. Going upscale with enhanced sophistication is, however, the new rule; which is bringing such mechanisms to other fields of application in other industries.

And services: Ask a simple question on a Web-site and often enough it will be an automated program that responds in proper English ...

Log in or Sign up

Rising number of overdoses amid dim job prospects for Millenials

Moonglow Well-Known Member

Moonglow Well-Known Member

Reiver Well-Known Member

james M Banned

JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

james M Banned

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Rising number of overdoses amid dim job prospects for Millenials

Moonglow Well-Known Member

Moonglow Well-Known Member

Reiver Well-Known Member

james M Banned

JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

james M Banned

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches