If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs, but it's good for those still employed   (usatoday.com) divider line 368
    More: Interesting, Congressional Budget Office, minimum wage hike, minimum wages, nonpartisan, absenteeism  
•       •       •

1286 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 Feb 2014 at 9:36 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



368 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-18 07:52:17 PM
Now we get to see that the lefties decry the CBO and the righties praise them!

The CBO is pretty accurate. I will be interested in seeing the debate.
 
2014-02-18 07:59:12 PM
Since there are usually people on here who know these things, I'll just ask, is there any indication that jobs have been cut back following previous raises in the minimum wage?

/Also, just to note it, the report says cost 500,000 new jobs, in other words employers wouldn't hire people they otherwise would have.
 
2014-02-18 08:03:30 PM

timujin: Since there are usually people on here who know these things, I'll just ask, is there any indication that jobs have been cut back following previous raises in the minimum wage?

/Also, just to note it, the report says cost 500,000 new jobs, in other words employers wouldn't hire people they otherwise would have.


"the weight of evidence now show[s] that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market."

The Impact of Increasing the Minimum Wage on Unemployment: No Evidence of Harm
 
2014-02-18 08:04:19 PM

timujin: Since there are usually people on here who know these things, I'll just ask, is there any indication that jobs have been cut back following previous raises in the minimum wage?

/Also, just to note it, the report says cost 500,000 new jobs, in other words employers wouldn't hire people they otherwise would have.


That still would be not good news.
 
2014-02-18 08:05:12 PM

fusillade762: timujin: Since there are usually people on here who know these things, I'll just ask, is there any indication that jobs have been cut back following previous raises in the minimum wage?

/Also, just to note it, the report says cost 500,000 new jobs, in other words employers wouldn't hire people they otherwise would have.

"the weight of evidence now show[s] that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market."

The Impact of Increasing the Minimum Wage on Unemployment: No Evidence of Harm


I'm aware of several studies showing that there isn't an indication of job loss, I'm wondering if there are others that counter those.  Of course, if I wasn't in the middle of three other things (and pretty lazy on top of that), I could take the time to see why the CBO came to their conclusion.
 
2014-02-18 08:05:35 PM
Good topic, damned to the Business tab. Oh well.
 
2014-02-18 08:14:57 PM

Darth_Lukecash: timujin: Since there are usually people on here who know these things, I'll just ask, is there any indication that jobs have been cut back following previous raises in the minimum wage?

/Also, just to note it, the report says cost 500,000 new jobs, in other words employers wouldn't hire people they otherwise would have.

That still would be not good news.


I wasn't commenting on the "goodness" of the news, only noting that it wasn't 500,000 people getting fired from their current jobs.
 
2014-02-18 08:17:09 PM
Double edged swords are double edged.
 
2014-02-18 08:23:08 PM
Whitehouse response.

1. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would directly benefit 16.5 million workers.
2. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage would increase income for millions of middle-class families, on net, even after accounting for its estimates of job losses.
3. CBO finds that this wage increase would help the economy today.
4. CBO found that only 12 percent of low-wage workers will be teenagers.
5. CBO also found that raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.
6. CBO's estimates of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment does not reflect the current consensus view of economists.

And they go on to discuss that consensus.

As Ezra Klein put it, this is a place that the CBO isn't a very relevant authority. They usually stick to researching the effects of complicated legislation, analyses that no one else does. There's already a ton of minimum wage research. Usually it's hard to find economists surveys of bills the CBO looks at. But in this case we can. Link

The key passage in this report is this:

pbs.twimg.com

Goldfarb has some other interesting points about the report in his timeline. Also, here.

One of which is that 10.1% of Americans make between the minimum wage and this proposed increase- double the historical average. That's a lot of people. Which bring us to the key question, does the negative of (possibly) preventing 500K jobs being created by the second half of 2016 outweigh the positive of increasing wages for 16.5M people and lifting 900K out of poverty? I imagine those on the left will say no, while those on the right will say yes.
 
2014-02-18 08:27:19 PM
I saw a really interesting point about this today - this is a really strange thing for the CBO to talk about. Not that they are right or wrong here (IMO they are just as trustworthy on this one as anything else), but that this is a weird thing for them to chime in on.

Think about what the CBO does - it takes huge, complex bills, analysis all the different parts, and tells us the likely impact on the economy. Its especially useful because the things it analyzes are unique - every bill is different, with different provisions, and different impacts. There's no way that the broader economic world will have studied the specific impacts of specific bills, so the CBO steps in; you input a bill and it spits out an analysis.

A minimum wage hike is pretty much the exact opposite of the kind of thing the CBO chimes in on. It's not a complex bill; its a single thing which, while it has complicated rippled effects, is very straightforward. Similarly, because its not complex and its a very old idea, its already been studied to death. Independent economists have been analyzing this for decades and decades, so there's already a ton of discussion out there.

Long story short, the CBO is often very useful because its the only game in town. That's not the case here, so its worth seeing this in context. It's not that the CBO is wrong, but merely that's its merely one voice in a huge chorus of studies about the results of a minimum wage hike, and there's no particular reason to attribute the CBO special insight on this one.
 
2014-02-18 08:28:03 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: As Ezra Klein put it, this is a place that the CBO isn't a very relevant authority. They usually stick to researching the effects of complicated legislation, analyses that no one else does. There's already a ton of minimum wage research. Usually it's hard to find economists surveys of bills the CBO looks at. But in this case we can. Link


Beat me to it - good call for crediting Klein, I had forgotten who I got this idea from.
 
2014-02-18 08:29:58 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Whitehouse response.

1. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would directly benefit 16.5 million workers.
2. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage would increase income for millions of middle-class families, on net, even after accounting for its estimates of job losses.
3. CBO finds that this wage increase would help the economy today.
4. CBO found that only 12 percent of low-wage workers will be teenagers.
5. CBO also found that raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.
6. CBO's estimates of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment does not reflect the current consensus view of economists.

And they go on to discuss that consensus.

As Ezra Klein put it, this is a place that the CBO isn't a very relevant authority. They usually stick to researching the effects of complicated legislation, analyses that no one else does. There's already a ton of minimum wage research. Usually it's hard to find economists surveys of bills the CBO looks at. But in this case we can. Link

The key passage in this report is this:



Goldfarb has some other interesting points about the report in his timeline. Also, here.

One of which is that 10.1% of Americans make between the minimum wage and this proposed increase- double the historical average. That's a lot of people. Which bring us to the key question, does the negative of (possibly) preventing 500K jobs being created by the second half of 2016 outweigh the positive of increasing wages for 16.5M people and lifting 900K out of poverty? I imagine those on the left will say no, while those on the right will say yes.


This is why I love fark. Smarter people than me.

Still, CBO warning should be acknowledged as a strong possibility. Otherwise the Democratic Party will have a hard time against the GOP sound bite.
 
2014-02-18 08:35:27 PM

Darth_Lukecash: This is why I love fark. Smarter people than me.


Thanks. I don't think I'm smarter, just more connected in this particular instance. That's why I follow smarter people, and share what they have say.
 
2014-02-18 08:38:42 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Otherwise the Democratic Party will have a hard time against the GOP sound bite.


Also, I don't think they'll have as hard a time as you think. Raising the minimum wage is wildly popular - mid 70% approval popular. Ds, Is, and even Rs are for it. The only group that is against the idea are the far right Tea Party types. I'm sure they'll glom onto the 500K number, but I don't think they were going to change their minds anyway. They're not really known for their flexible opinions.
 
2014-02-18 08:40:10 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Darth_Lukecash: Otherwise the Democratic Party will have a hard time against the GOP sound bite.

Also, I don't think they'll have as hard a time as you think. Raising the minimum wage is wildly popular - mid 70% approval popular. Ds, Is, and even Rs are for it. The only group that is against the idea are the far right Tea Party types. I'm sure they'll glom onto the 500K number, but I don't think they were going to change their minds anyway. They're not really known for their flexible opinions.


You're forgetting the key group against it - rich people. The donor class. That's why it doesn't go through. Like you said, its wildly popular. But people politicians are beholden to donors, and spend a wildly inordinate amount of time talking to and absorbing the worldview of rich people, it doesn't pass.
 
2014-02-18 08:44:26 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Whitehouse response.

1. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would directly benefit 16.5 million workers.
2. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage would increase income for millions of middle-class families, on net, even after accounting for its estimates of job losses.
3. CBO finds that this wage increase would help the economy today.
4. CBO found that only 12 percent of low-wage workers will be teenagers.
5. CBO also found that raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.
6. CBO's estimates of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment does not reflect the current consensus view of economists.

And they go on to discuss that consensus.

As Ezra Klein put it, this is a place that the CBO isn't a very relevant authority. They usually stick to researching the effects of complicated legislation, analyses that no one else does. There's already a ton of minimum wage research. Usually it's hard to find economists surveys of bills the CBO looks at. But in this case we can. Link

The key passage in this report is this:

[pbs.twimg.com image 462x175]

Goldfarb has some other interesting points about the report in his timeline. Also, here.

One of which is that 10.1% of Americans make between the minimum wage and this proposed increase- double the historical average. That's a lot of people. Which bring us to the key question, does the negative of (possibly) preventing 500K jobs being created by the second half of 2016 outweigh the positive of increasing wages for 16.5M people and lifting 900K out of poverty? I imagine those on the left will say no, while those on the right will say yes.


---

If the far-right were being intellectually consistent (yeah I know) they'd have to support it if some of those job preventions happen in the government work force. Since as we all know, government has never created a single solitary job.
 
2014-02-18 08:45:18 PM

DamnYankees: You're forgetting the key group against it - rich people. The donor class. That's why it doesn't go through. Like you said, its wildly popular. But people politicians are beholden to donors, and spend a wildly inordinate amount of time talking to and absorbing the worldview of rich people, it doesn't pass.


It's impossible until it isn't. For now we're at least seeing some progress around the edges on the local level. On the federal level, at the very least it's something that's very hard to run against, and I don't think this report changes that.
 
2014-02-18 08:47:21 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: DamnYankees: You're forgetting the key group against it - rich people. The donor class. That's why it doesn't go through. Like you said, its wildly popular. But people politicians are beholden to donors, and spend a wildly inordinate amount of time talking to and absorbing the worldview of rich people, it doesn't pass.

It's impossible until it isn't. For now we're at least seeing some progress around the edges on the local level. On the federal level, at the very least it's something that's very hard to run against, and I don't think this report changes that.


I agree - its not impossible. It's just not nearly as easy at it should be given how popular it is. This all goes back to 2 basic things - (i) politicians are insanely sensitive to rich people's concerns and not at all responsive to poor people and (ii) all politicians, both conservative and liberal, greatly overestimate how conservative their constituents are. You put those 2 things together, and you get results like this.
 
2014-02-18 08:50:44 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Darth_Lukecash: Otherwise the Democratic Party will have a hard time against the GOP sound bite.

Also, I don't think they'll have as hard a time as you think. Raising the minimum wage is wildly popular - mid 70% approval popular. Ds, Is, and even Rs are for it. The only group that is against the idea are the far right Tea Party types. I'm sure they'll glom onto the 500K number, but I don't think they were going to change their minds anyway. They're not really known for their flexible opinions.


We'll see: they are gonna get hit with the immagration reform. If Boehner can't get minimum wage upgraded, then there will be hell to pay.
 
2014-02-18 08:52:19 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Dusk-You-n-Me: Darth_Lukecash: Otherwise the Democratic Party will have a hard time against the GOP sound bite.

Also, I don't think they'll have as hard a time as you think. Raising the minimum wage is wildly popular - mid 70% approval popular. Ds, Is, and even Rs are for it. The only group that is against the idea are the far right Tea Party types. I'm sure they'll glom onto the 500K number, but I don't think they were going to change their minds anyway. They're not really known for their flexible opinions.

We'll see: they are gonna get hit with the immagration reform. If Boehner can't get minimum wage upgraded, then there will be hell to pay.


Hell to pay from whom? The GOP isn't losing their majority. They likely won't even lose any seats.
 
2014-02-18 08:59:25 PM

Darth_Lukecash: This is why I love fark. Smarter people than me.

Still, CBO warning should be acknowledged as a strong possibility. Otherwise the Democratic Party will have a hard time against the GOP sound bite.



The actual CBO warning says between negligible and 1 million. 500k was just the easy soundbyte. Many other economists say the near zero is more likely.
 
2014-02-18 09:02:37 PM
Notice how we never seem to have shortage of CEOS who make wildly more than 10 an hour?
 
2014-02-18 09:12:54 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Now we get to see that the lefties decry the CBO and the righties praise them!

The CBO is pretty accurate. I will be interested in seeing the debate.


Tough call here.

Raise wages for many to a living wage above poverty levels.

Cause many to lose their jobs.

Hard to say. But can a fewer number of better paid employees provide same level of effort as more poorly paid employees? This in jobs requiring mostly manual labor?

Fark it. Let's pay them more and pass the costs to consumers, letting the market to balance it out. Pay them now or pay them later.

Why treat people like Walmart management?
 
2014-02-18 09:39:24 PM
So if higher wages cause unemployment why do CEOs get paid so much?
 
2014-02-18 09:40:17 PM
What?  Suddenly 500k people don't have to work 2 jobs to afford to eat?
 
2014-02-18 09:40:48 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Now we get to see that the lefties decry the CBO and the righties praise them!

The CBO is pretty accurate. I will be interested in seeing the debate.


I just wish there were more details. What assumptions were made? The CBO can't make any predictions without some baseline assumptions. Also, are those job losses in a single year and that's it? Or over 5 year? 10?  There's so little information here, it's hard to come to any conclusion at all based on TFA.
 
2014-02-18 09:42:10 PM
Nonsense. When the CBO projected repealing the ACA would raise the deficit, my conservative friends assured me the CBO is not worth listening to. So surely they will not use this to try to argue against raising the minimum wage.
 
2014-02-18 09:44:36 PM
 
2014-02-18 09:45:18 PM
soundbite on tv:

woman at walmart: Im against the raise in minimum wage!  if they increase my income, I will lose my welfare!   I live in section 8 housing, I would have to pay full rent!  I might lose my free phone too..  I do not like this at all!  This is an outrage!"
 
2014-02-18 09:45:19 PM

Darth_Lukecash: timujin: Since there are usually people on here who know these things, I'll just ask, is there any indication that jobs have been cut back following previous raises in the minimum wage?

/Also, just to note it, the report says cost 500,000 new jobs, in other words employers wouldn't hire people they otherwise would have.

That still would be not good news.


If an economy is otherwise advancing well, that is the best time to implement policies that would generally be considered drags... such as raising taxes to raise revenue to balance budgets. Or, in this case, raise the minimum wage (if it were proven that raising the minimum wage actually WERE a drag on the economy which there appears to be little historical evidence of). Getting more low-income people more money to spend is GOOD for the economy because those people are basically going to spend everything they earn. This is especially good if the effect is that only 150K jobs are created each month instead of 175K jobs (or whatever) for a short period of time.
 
2014-02-18 09:47:28 PM
Sounds good to me.  Do it.
 
2014-02-18 09:47:48 PM
I hope people understand when members of Congress spew things like we need to create more jobs that pay less than the poverty level, they aren't running for Congress. They're applying for a job with a lobbying firm. 44 of them are leaving this next election. I'm pretty sure there will be 44 new corporate lobbyists paying bribes to members of Congress sometime soon.
 
2014-02-18 09:48:00 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Whitehouse response.

1. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would directly benefit 16.5 million workers.
2. CBO finds that raising the minimum wage would increase income for millions of middle-class families, on net, even after accounting for its estimates of job losses.
3. CBO finds that this wage increase would help the economy today.
4. CBO found that only 12 percent of low-wage workers will be teenagers.
5. CBO also found that raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.
6. CBO's estimates of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment does not reflect the current consensus view of economists.

And they go on to discuss that consensus.

As Ezra Klein put it, this is a place that the CBO isn't a very relevant authority. They usually stick to researching the effects of complicated legislation, analyses that no one else does. There's already a ton of minimum wage research. Usually it's hard to find economists surveys of bills the CBO looks at. But in this case we can. Link

The key passage in this report is this:

[pbs.twimg.com image 462x175]

Goldfarb has some other interesting points about the report in his timeline. Also, here.

One of which is that 10.1% of Americans make between the minimum wage and this proposed increase- double the historical average. That's a lot of people. Which bring us to the key question, does the negative of (possibly) preventing 500K jobs being created by the second half of 2016 outweigh the positive of increasing wages for 16.5M people and lifting 900K out of poverty? I imagine those on the left will say no, while those on the right will say yes.


Another thought or two to add to your very well done post:

1.  My take is that those 500K won't be "lost" jobs in the sense that people will be let go.  Rather, it will be jobs not created because the employers hold back on hiring a bit.
2.  However, when the higher wages give workers more money to spend, they will spend that money.  The places that they spend it in will see higher profit over time, which will lead many of them to expand.  Ergo, a lot of the spots that they initially held back on will likely be filled over the longer term.

Again, just my take on your salient points.  I could very well be wrong though, so feel free to turn the above into swiss cheese.  ;)
 
2014-02-18 09:48:36 PM

RaiderFanMikeP: soundbite on tv:

woman at walmart: Im against the raise in minimum wage!  if they increase my income, I will lose my welfare!   I live in section 8 housing, I would have to pay full rent!  I might lose my free phone too..  I do not like this at all!  This is an outrage!"


She ain't got time for that!  xD
 
2014-02-18 09:48:44 PM

DamnYankees: Dusk-You-n-Me: Darth_Lukecash: Otherwise the Democratic Party will have a hard time against the GOP sound bite.

Also, I don't think they'll have as hard a time as you think. Raising the minimum wage is wildly popular - mid 70% approval popular. Ds, Is, and even Rs are for it. The only group that is against the idea are the far right Tea Party types. I'm sure they'll glom onto the 500K number, but I don't think they were going to change their minds anyway. They're not really known for their flexible opinions.

You're forgetting the key group against it - rich people. The donor class. That's why it doesn't go through. Like you said, its wildly popular. But people politicians are beholden to donors, and spend a wildly inordinate amount of time talking to and absorbing the worldview of rich people, it doesn't pass.


Depends on where those rich people get their money.

Guys who own retailers will likely love it. Service industry is probably a mixed bag (considering fast food is a service industry and labor is a major part of their costs) but that's not uniform against the board. This is overall a boon for the durable goods and energy sectors of the economy as they stand to profit from this, while not impacting professional services (white collar jobs) or the financial or investment sectors too much ( but there might be a slight uptick in credit and lending ).

Overall this is a really positive (and overdue) move on the part of the government and most people and companies in the US stand to profit from it. The joys of living in a society where low skill labor isn't in high demand...
 
2014-02-18 09:49:42 PM

mrlewish: So if higher wages cause unemployment why do CEOs get paid so much?


Because Fark you pee-on, you're worth half what you're grandpa was, I, on the other hand, am worth 500 times what my grandpa was...
 
2014-02-18 09:50:43 PM
That seems like an acceptable loss, particularly since it would be temporary
 
2014-02-18 09:50:57 PM
In an ever decreasing labor market, improving the amount those laboring here get is better than hiring a few more minimun wage jobs. We are talking tens of millions getting less welfare in favor of half a million staying on it

There is not enough demand in the international labor market for near-full American employment. We need to accept this, or come up with an alternative to crashing the payscale. I see no serious proposals, short of heavy tarrifs, which would be an option alongside a wage hike, not something to do instead of it.
 
2014-02-18 09:50:57 PM
 So since Republicans are always complaining about the number of federal employees they'll be happy about this. right?
 
2014-02-18 09:52:15 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Again, just my take on your salient points.  I could very well be wrong though, so feel free to turn the above into swiss cheese.  ;)


I'm with you. I think the increase in aggregate demand from giving 16.5M workers a raise negates any possible prevention of the creation of news jobs two years down the road. Wages are at historic lows. That needs to change.
 
2014-02-18 09:53:35 PM
The CBO is only ever reliable when it says what you like.

I do find it funny that liberals stomped around waving CBO reports about ObamaCare, swearing up and down about all this money it would save, now suddenly have stopped doing that. Can't imagine why. The CBO was suddenly a man coming down the mountains with two stone tablets back when it was suggesting ObamaCare might save money.

What people don't realize is that the CBO reports are always.... ALWAYS generated on assumptions.

"So, CBO, assuming that this thing... Which will never happen in a million years... Does happen, what will be the results?" CBO: "It will save a billion dollars" "See! The CBO says this will save us money!"
 
2014-02-18 09:53:54 PM
Odd since the amount of jobs INCREASED when Reagan, Bush, and Clinton raised it.
 
2014-02-18 09:54:09 PM
Just wait till Republicans rename the wage hike legislation to the Hawley-Smoot Job Eraser and Great Depression Revival Act.

They'll tie raising the minimum wage to restarting the Great Depression somehow.
 
2014-02-18 09:54:15 PM

Darth_Lukecash: The CBO is pretty accurate.


Ummm... not really. They missed the housing bubble and its inevitable collapse, predicting a strong economy at least thru 2011 (pdf). Even as late as 2008 (also pdf) they still didn't realize what was happening.
 
2014-02-18 09:56:17 PM

Smackledorfer: In an ever decreasing labor market, improving the amount those laboring here get is better than hiring a few more minimun wage jobs. We are talking tens of millions getting less welfare in favor of half a million staying on it

There is not enough demand in the international labor market for near-full American employment. We need to accept this, or come up with an alternative to crashing the payscale. I see no serious proposals, short of heavy tarrifs, which would be an option alongside a wage hike, not something to do instead of it.


Hey, I've got an idea: Let's tax the flab out of the top 5% and plow the money into rebuilding our infrastructure.
Maybe we could elect a Congress that prioritizes taking care of all Americans over corporations, high-rollers, and political party.

/A man's got to dream.
 
2014-02-18 09:57:58 PM

Darth_Lukecash: The CBO is pretty accurate. I will be interested in seeing the debate.


How farked is your economy if paying people a living wage tanks that many jobs? I mean, how many incredibly shiatty-ass jobs do you have in that country?
 
2014-02-18 09:58:05 PM

randomjsa: The CBO is only ever reliable when it says what you like.

I do find it funny that liberals stomped around waving CBO reports about ObamaCare, swearing up and down about all this money it would save, now suddenly have stopped doing that. Can't imagine why. The CBO was suddenly a man coming down the mountains with two stone tablets back when it was suggesting ObamaCare might save money.


I think you mean three, don't you?

northsouthcomm.files.wordpress.com

Oops....let's leave it at two...
 
2014-02-18 09:59:00 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: The CBO report (PDF)


I'm gonna have to read this more thoroughly, but it seems weird to me that it is saying that, while the 10.10 rate would reduce TOTAL employment by 500,000, it would at the same time raise 900,000 people above the poverty line.

That just seems counter-intuitive to me.
 
2014-02-18 09:59:33 PM
Low minimum wage is just another way for corporations like Wal-Mart to get subsidized by the government via food stamps, Medicare, and other programs for their impoverished employees.
 
2014-02-18 10:04:23 PM
In other words 500,000 employer assholes too cheap to pay their workers halfway decent wages.

Good. Let them fail. F*ck em.
 
Displayed 50 of 368 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report