Fast-food walkout U.S. workers strike in several cities to call attention to low wages.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by onequestion

 

Your uttering complete nonsense telling me that someone should work for less then what it takes to survive.

Where have I said that? In fact, I said the opposite.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

that's not really a good ninjabackflip. u might twist ur spine that way lol

reply to post by Phage


Wow.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Aazadan

 

What do you mean they "ceased doing it?"

They ceased paying a living wage when they realized they could profit more. If you go back to the 1950's-1960's one could own a home, goto college, and have extra money off of a minimum wage job. Goto the 70's and you could still do that but not as easily. In 1980 one could work full time for minimum wage during the summer and pay an entire years worth of tuition, housing, and food for college. These days if one tries to do that they will NEVER get an education or anything else. Minimum wage flat out has not kept up with what's required to get ahead. Furthermore, living standards have gone down significantly. One could have a decent house in the 50's on minimum wage, they could even put aside savings for retirement. These days, minimum wage buys you an 8'x10' room (actually... my apartment measures even less than that), electricity, water, and no conveniences like hot water, air conditioning, counter space, and so on.

Then complain to the DOL about minimum wage laws.

Just addressing minimum wage laws doesn't fix the problem, corporations MUST become less profitable in order to increase wages in a meaningful way. As has been shown numerous times, simply increasing wages just adds inflation to the economy, the price of everything goes up as companies seek to maintain or often times use it as an excuse to expand their profit margins. In publicly traded companies the problem is compounded by the fact that they're legally required to seek to maximize profits. McDonalds may want to pay burger flippers more but they have evidence that there's ample employees when paying minimum wage, to pay more would be to upset the shareholders and likely open the company up to all sorts of legal issues.

Not exactly. There is a minimum wage. But there are a lot of unskilled people out there and those are the people who will always be there when profit margins on a product are low and it takes a low skill level to produce that product. The "solution" is not to pay them more.

There's also a lot of skilled people out there who simply have nowhere else to work. The truth of the matter is that we don't have enough skilled labor positions for college graduates. I have four degrees and work for less than minimum wage, because that's the jobs that are available. Many people are in this situation. The college I work at has a graduate employment rate of just 17%. The jobs simply aren't there.

Originally posted by Phage
Are you proposing that unskilled workers should be paid at the same level as skilled workers?
The question makes about as much sense as yours.

No one is saying a fry cook should make the same wage as a doctor. They're saying the fry cook should be able to pay rent, afford food, pay their electric and water bills, and maybe have a little extra spending money every now and then without needing to rely on government subsidies for low wage workers just to get by. Right now the government is essentially subsidizing the wages of employees and letting corporations pocket the difference. That should not be happening.

reply to post by Aazadan


Well put. Thanks i enjoyed reading your post. It lets me know that someone is still thinking in this country/ world.

reply to post by Phage

Really? How much you figure? What about the guys on the slow shift?

More then they get paid now for sure, ...What slow shift, if pay goes up it will turn into a feeding frenzy of the same ol, probably would only be a few people shifting back and forth because it would be a cash cow at least compared to what it was before.

Think so? How many people 10, 15 people on a shift. Each one taking piece of that burger?

Last I checked there only seemed to be 7 or 8 at most when I go into these fast food joints. Right now like somebody said who worked there, they used to get 40 hrs a week at minimum, now they get half that so 20ish hours or so, and they keep them shifted back and forth so those 15 people would be working 24/7 in shifts. So I dont get what is your point. You seem a bit dense. The fact is what does the Mcdonald corps do, what do there shareholders trade? Hours? Nope in percentages of profit or overall of what they take in after expenses and everything, if even that, as they get government incentives for such things also, so if they hire this or that or so and so they get tax breaks or just straight up government cash. But anyways if you scratch all that, I think given the fact that everybody on all levels in corporate is raking in the dough I think its save to say there making money and then some, though most of it is practically because all of the free incentives and loop holes in the tax systems.

So ya, if it costs them 1 dollars to make a sandwich and they sell 500 sandwitches at 5 dollars by the end of a 24/7 hour period thats 2,500$ a day. Now if they work 8 hour shifts which they dont at 7$ an hour that would be 56$ before tax and everythings else. So in a day you would need 8 people in 3 shifts to cover a 24 hour period, which is not true as well as at night they got like 3 people working there at max, so 8 people at 8 hour periods, in 3 shifts would be 1344 total before tax and all that of the 7$ they if they were all working in those 8 group numbers for 24 hours. But since they dont you may as well take off a few hundred dollars so 1000 just to make it more even, now in sandwiches only if they sold 500 a day minus drinks, minus ice fryers, minus ice cream, minus all that it would still be half as much as they took in on those 500 sandwiches a day.

And thats just # I made up at the top of my head as when I got there I usually get a big mack and a few dollar menu sandwiches to go as there frys are kind of iffy and there drinks I could get for cheeper elsewere. Of which the big mack alone is like 4$ something, and there breakfast menu for a tiny egg mcmuffin sandwich I could swallow in one bite and would need at least 3 to be full were one alone would cost 3 or 4$. So ya I think even my half assed numbers I think there selling a lot more product then that per day or month or yearly. If someone wanted to they could run through this whole thing incentives included by government and tax breaks and tax codes and the whole thing and they will see that there not exactely in the runs on the profits. In fact by hourly as it adds up the employees would get pain in the 00.034 % percentages of what they would over all take in on a longer time scale.

But here from this site.
McDonalds

McDonald's makes an average of 6,480,000 hamburgers every day of the calendar. The most recent published numbers we found show McDonald's selling 4,500 hamburgers every minute of the day. That's 75 sold every second, not to mention the rest of their other lucrative menu items. In 2010, McDonald's saw total revenue of $24,075,000,000

Piece work is the answer to corporate greed. Ok. But no, because what you end up with is the same thing you're complaining about except that now instead of being "underpaid" by the hour you are now underpaid by the piece. In any case, you are sort of ignoring the fact that in spite of their best efforts, McDonald's doesn't sell as many burgers as they would like to. There's this thing called supply and demand. You can't sell an unlimited number of burgers.

Well no doupt there not selling enopuh. But in the second it took me to write this they have sold 75 burgers, ok more like 6 seconds so they just sold 450 burgers in the time it took me to write this. Ya they could do better, but there for sure seems to be a demand for burgers, and worldwide numbers dont translate that well into single cell organization. But hey thats what the franchise operators are for, to take the brunt of the poop as its a proven fact that the % percentages exponentially increase on larger and longer scale. And thats what there dealing with.

Ok so it was more like 20 seconds.

reply to post by Aazadan

If you go back to the 1950's-1960's one could own a home, goto college, and have extra money off of a minimum wage job.

Um. No.

In 1956 the minimum wage was $1.00/hr or $2080/yr. The "poverty level" was $3,000/yr. Are you saying that people 30% below poverty level could "own a home, goto college, and have extra money"? That's some kind of good poverty.
www.infoplease.com...
www.commentarymagazine.com...

I worked minimum wage in the 60's and 70's. I was single. I couldn't have "owned a home, gone to college, and have extra money" but it did buy me gas, food, and rent. Working minimum wage has always meant two things; you can't comfortably support a family working 40 hours a week, the only way out is to improve your skill set and get a higher paying job.

There's also a lot of skilled people out there who simply have nowhere else to work.

Then why do we see things like this?
jobs.aol.com...

Wrong skill set, yes. Some skills are no longer in demand. Times change. Haven't you heard? But I hear that Ford is opening up a new plant in Detroit. That'll put some skilled labor (union labor) on the job.
tv.msnbc.com...

reply to post by Phage

Speaking from experience I take it. Have you been a construction manager working on, oh... say 5 or 6 projects at the same time. Each of which is in the neighborhood of 2 million dollars in value? They certainly require more education and responsibility than working in the kitchen.

Like I said the whole system caters to on mass. On a single to single building project what they do would not be possible without the great many loopholes and tax breaks they get not to mention that material would cost a fraction of the price for them then regular people. But even with all that the whole thing is ultimately maintained by the tax payers and they must be constantly bailed out ever so often years were the tax payers themself are paying for the things there buying form these people latter. Kind of like being taxed on every transaction of an item that you would buy in the long procedure it took to get to your hands, in fact taxed on the taxes themselves.

And yes it would take a bit more education then working in the kitchen. But definable not more responsibility unless your talking about the responsibility of making a profit, in either case ya its a big ass responsibility to make that kinds of money, but there are people willing to step up to being millionaires its not really all that hard to do if somebody really wants to achieve it. I mean you got idiots running these things and there working fine..OK kind of sort of fine. But in the end its still a broken system. Which is why my parents are literally paying 15k to have a house built in the old country from scratch which would be better then the one there currently living in which costs a whole lot more then that, a whole lot more...It's basically under which system you have to work under, society I think was never meant to function without the dept system or without it going under every once in a while.

Fast, yes. And yes, they try to control costs. That doesn't mean they are cheap. Air conditioning equipment, refrigeration equipment, kitchen equipment...not cheap. Snazzy tile finishes (at McDonald's anyhow). But you know the franchise owners bear a good percentage of the costs, don't you?

Ok so they got conditioning equipment, omg and a fridge you dont say what would that come out to a total of a few thousand to get in there. Your trying to tell me a corp of which the franchise owners make in revenue $24,075,000,000 give or take every year cant afford it? Besides I think some people here are confused about what a franchise owner, and what a franchise operator is, and the differences are worlds apart. I do not think the franchise owners ever stepped foot in a MacDonald while a franchise operators may have to be there day in and day out. But even they would get paid more then the workers in these franchises.

And there tiles are not exactly so snazzy. Not by a long shot and there not that hard to install either. And sure they bear a brunt, a brunt of profitss$$$$.

Right. No pesky building codes to bother with. No pesky trade unions. No safety laws to comply with. No minimum wage requirements.

Off course there not so lucky, they have a version of building codes to bother with, though not so cumbersome as here. Trade unions well in the particular places I was talking about there more socialist the ones with jobs get free tings all the time even free skydiving lessons and all of that, not to mention paid vacations which last in the months. And usually they do pretty much what people do here. And safety laws, they have those to, though nobody listens to them, in fact they drive on the sidewalk there if they want to get around people or traffic, no traffic lights but in the main cities. And they have never had a death from it...Go figure eh?

reply to post by Phage

that doesn't mean that every person's place is worth a lot of money. Some jobs don't create much money when viewed in the large scale. That doesn't mean there is no value, just that there is not as much. It turns out that some jobs don't produce enough on an individual basis to justify a higher wage. That's why they are low paying jobs.

this is wrong in sooooo many ways, i'm not sure where to begin.

first of all, a person's job is not necessarily his 'place' in society.
jobs don't create money, period.
money seldom equals the 'value' of the labor performed regardless the skill level.

and regarding the second to last sentence, please answer me this ...
if skill is the determining factor in your logic, then why do 'ditch diggers', who are also UNION members, earn top dollar for their very NON-skilled labor ??

not sure about you, but i tend to believe that the ability to 'cook' anything takes far more skill than dancing with a shovel ... and since those guys make anywhere from $18-30/hr ... what's your beef with the $15 the food handlers demand ??

why would you compare the skill level/education level of an engineer against that of a 'cook' anyway ??

Higher paying jobs are harder to come by. There is more competition for them. They require higher skill sets.

care to compare jobs/payrolls with similar skill sets ??

teller vs cashier
customer service vs consultant
ditch digger (union) vs grave digger
janitor vs window washer
counter salesperson vs car salesperson

and why are you picking on 'cooks' anyway ??
fast food joints have plenty of employees who are not cooks.

Originally posted by Phage
In 1956 the minimum wage was $1.00/hr or $2080/yr. The "poverty level" was $3,000/yr. Are you saying that people 30% below poverty level could "own a home, goto college, and have extra money"? That's some kind of good poverty.
www.infoplease.com...
www.commentarymagazine.com...

I'll counter your links with one of my own.

www.businessinsider.com...-1950s-1

I worked minimum wage in the 60's and 70's. I was single. I couldn't have "owned a home, gone to college, and have extra money" but it did buy me gas, food, and rent. Working minimum wage has always meant two things; you can't comfortably support a family working 40 hours a week, the only way out is to improve your skill set and get a higher paying job.

You can say more on this than I can from personal experience as we're talking about a time period before I was born, but I trust the information I read. Personal history tends to be skewed by ones future experiences. Documented history tells the real tale, and fortunately earnings power in the 1950's is something well documented. I also want to point out that per capita there were fewer minimum wage jobs than today. We've been replacing higher paid jobs with lower ones which exacerbates the problem.

Then why do we see things like this?
jobs.aol.com...

I happen to be qualified for 9 of the 10 jobs on that list (though I'm a bit weak on the cyber security side of things, in my experience schools don't teach you to code for security), and could probably do the last one if someone were to hire me without a doctorate. That doesn't change the fact that those jobs are largely concentrated in a handful of cities, and unless you live in one of them or can afford to move to one (hint: people that aren't making much money can't do that) those jobs aren't for you.

reply to post by Honor93

first of all, a person's job is not necessarily his 'place' in society.

I didn't say it is.

if skill is the determining factor in your logic, then why do 'ditch diggers', who are also UNION members, earn top dollar for their very NON-skilled labor ??

Mostly so the union can support itself on union dues and various other sources of income from the employer. But union laborers are not unskilled. For the most part they are quite well trained. There are also graduated pay scales based on experience and training.

but i tend to believe that the ability to 'cook' anything takes far more skill than dancing with a shovel

Your version of what union laborers do is inaccurate but if all they are doing is "dancing" with a shovel, they are being overpaid.

and why are you picking on 'cooks' anyway ??
fast food joints have plenty of employees who are not cooks.

I'm not. It's a generic term. McDonald's calls them "crew".

reply to post by Aazadan

I'll counter your links with one of my own.

I don't see "owning a home, going to college, and having extra money there". Do you? I don't see supporting a family there. Do you?
The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. Correct.
But your claim that minimum wage jobs have ever provided an income above poverty levels is completely fallacious.

I also want to point out that per capita there were fewer minimum wage jobs than today.

Your source for that statistic?

That doesn't change the fact that those jobs are largely concentrated in a handful of cities, and unless you live in one of them or can afford to move to one (hint: people that aren't making much money can't do that) those jobs aren't for you.

You'd be surprised what some companies are willing to pay for in order to get qualified personnel.

reply to post by Phage

you did, i didn't quote it but i will, just for you.

Sure, everyone has a "place". But that doesn't mean that every person's place is worth a lot of money.

in response to onequestion on pg 27.

yes, i read the 'flow' of the conversation all the way up to pg 28 before responding.

Supply and demand works in the labor market just like it does in the retail market

not quite.
WWII was the last big drop in labor supply that also brought women into the labor force, to fill the demand.

but during those times, we also had plenty of manufacturing opportunities which involved EVERY skill level ... what production comparison is there today ??

microsoft began in a garage, remember ??

Mostly so the union can support itself on union dues and various other sources of income from the employer. But union laborers are not unskilled. For the most part they are quite well trained. There are also graduated pay scales based on experience and training.

ummmm, NO.
and i can't believe there are ppl still in existance who believe that baloney

that would be another topic but thanks for avoiding the obvious.
(it actually circles back to the 'contract' but we won't go there)

Your version of what union laborers do is inaccurate but if all they are doing is "dancing" with a shovel, they are being overpaid.

as family of a union steward, i'm pretty sure i'm familiar with the schtick, thanks anyway.

so, McDonald's crew is the only one striking ??
funny, i read it was at least 4 or 5 establishments.
usa today

targeted fast-food chains including McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and Yum Brands, whose chains include KFC and Taco Bell. Workers are [color=amber]also seeking the right to unionize.

which is likely the real rub here.
service workers have been trying to unionize for over 30yrs ... one does have to wonder why their efforts are always sabotaged.

I just did a calculation comparing food stamps with pay using a state calculator, and a $15 dollar increase in pay compared to $7.50 a hour for fast food workers.
At 32 hours per week making $7.50 a hour with yourself and a wife
You could get between 161 dollars to 360 dollars in food stamps depending on rent,
utilities, if you pay them and other circumstances.

At 15 dollars a hour 32 hours a week with yourself and wife... wife does not work,, same in case above.
You would not get food stamps. unless you paid a heck of a lot in rent. Your tax rate would be 15% plus city and state taxes.
So federal tax would be 15%
State tax varies, it can be from 1% to 8%.

At 15 dollars a hour people will lose assistance in food stamps and utilities welfare.
As a friend of mine told me.
He worked average 28 hours per week for 9 dollars a hour.
Single father of 2.
He landed a 18 dollar a hour job and lost his welfare benefits such as 10 dollar a month land line phone
food stamps, paid utilities for 3 months during the winter, amd lowered electric bill throughout the year.
He stated he was better off making 9 dollars a hour. had more money and more free time.

I originally typed out more, but accidentally hit the back button and erased it so this is more brief. Hopefully I didn't leave anything out while rewriting it.

Originally posted by Phage
I don't see "owning a home, going to college, and having extra money there". Do you? I don't see supporting a family there. Do you?

A little bit of research goes a long way. 1950's rent was $42/month, and mortgages are rather comparable.

Here's some examples of 1950's homes.
www.thepeoplehistory.com...

We'll use a $7000 house. That's not the cheapest but it is on the lower end of the scale. We are talking about minimum wage afterall. Lets also use the rates of 10% down (so $6300 loan), a 4% interest rate (I couldn't find the actual interest rates but plenty of comparisons that 4.17% was the lowest average rate since the 50's), and a 20 year loan as 30 year loans weren't the standard back then. Rather loans were 20 or 25 year.

Last we'll use this for our mortgage calculator: www.mortgagecalculator.org...

If we put those values in we get a monthly payment of $45.47. That's not too far off from the $42/month rent. It's only 8.26% higher. When it comes to how that compares to income. Minimum wage was 75 cents/hour, if you allow for a 2 week unpaid vacation per year that comes to $1500 earned. The mortgage would be $545.64 while rent is $504. A difference of 2.776% of total income. If you shift the loan to 0 down and a 25 year rate things change to $44.24/month rent. So even without a substantial savings it would be affordable. Also these are generic 1950's rates which means they're probably more representative of 1955 while we're using a wage of 1950.

Average tuition doesn't seem to have been tracked or compiled for 1950, however a few schools do list theirs.
en.wikipedia.org...

www.archives.upenn.edu...
$675 for tuition and books from U.Penn in 1950.

A small loan would likely be needed but tuition+mortgage comes to only 79% of income which still leaves some for other bills and food though taxes still need to be taken into account. There's a little more spare money if you account for the 44 hour work week that was standard back then rather than the 40 hour work week we have these days.

If one happened to do something like rent out the second bedroom in these homes that would defray some costs as well. But at the end we're talking about a single person, not even a double income family being able to afford this with some minor loans. Alternatively, one could spend 6 years rather than 4 years to complete college (this would help out with study time as well) and not have to pay as much each year potentially preventing the need for any loans as it would cut 1/3 off of the annual tuition and book costs. It's also worth pointing out that U.Penn seems to be on the higher end of the scale.

Your source for that statistic?

The fact that we're outsourcing jobs and replacing them with Starbucks workers.

You'd be surprised what some companies are willing to pay for to get qualified personel.

No, I'm well aware, but these aren't exactly rare job skills even if they are in demand. Why pay to move someone when they can get someone else that they don't have to pay for? That's the situation I've found to be true.

Maybe.... adjusted inflation to around 1967 to today would mean min wage should be around 14 dollars a hour today. Also the dollar lost it's value..... Even with pay increases loss of value of dollar and real inflation makes sure no pay increase will make a person come ahead.
Globalization causes lower wages.
As said by Asian leading politicians....

Levi jeans now made overseas, did you see the price come down? nope.
Nike shoes same as Levis.
Flat tax is needed.
Average people who make around 34,000 dollars and less a year pay around 2.8% of federal taxes to treasury.
No payroll tax for people who make less than 34,000 a year should be enforced.
Add a national sales tax GST at 10% which includes all imports....
lower payroll taxes.....for the rest....

When, and if minimum wage goes up to crazy levels like 15 dollars a hour.
Many people will lose welfare benefits, and in many cases pay taxes instead of paying zero taxes.
In fact as it is today, many people get more back in tax refunds then they paid into it.

They better be careful what they wish for... They might get paid more an hour
but they will have more money taken from them with lost welfare benefits.

reply to post by Phage

But your claim that minimum wage jobs have ever provided an income above poverty levels is completely fallacious.

actually, it isn't.

maybe this government report would help.
census
i can't seem to copy/paste a relevant paragraph so i'll type it here ... please read the original.

Between 1947 and 1958, aggregate personal income of families and unrelated individuals rose from $185 Billion to $338 Billion.
This rise was accompanied by a marked increase in average family income and by a gradual upward shift of families on the income scale. The average income of families increased by two-thirds (from $3000 to $5100) during this period. At the same time, the proportion in the lowest income groups (under $3000) was cut in half (from 49% in 1947 to 24% in 1958) and the proportion in the highest income groups ($10,000 and over) had tripled. (see table B)


now, contrary to what you are promoting, such an increase during an economic downturn did enable purchases like cars, houses and toys, as well as savings.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by earthling42
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

That is not to much, $15 is far above poverty line

edit on 29-8-2013 by earthling42 because: (no reason given)

$15 is not that far above the poverty line at all. based upon a 40 hour work week, 52 weeks a year it comes out to $31,200...BEFORE taxes. And other expenses, like the various insurances, utilities, rent/mortage, food & clothing. It gets pissed away rather quickly.

Poverty level for 1 person in 2013 is set (and i'm rounding up..) around $12,000 for two people it is closer to $15000.. figures based on poverty levels are not based on household expenditures or your gross pay. $15 an hour is way over the poverty level. Personally I don't think that someone flipping pre made burgers or dropping baskets of pre made fries should earn anywhere close to $15/hr it is going to create an even lazier work force. A lot of college graduate with useless degrees are fighting over jobs that actually pay $15/hr... and at least they tried to better themselves. Fast food jobs should be a starting point for our kids between high school and college or for those who either dont lack ambition or just dont care. As one member pointed out it, if they get their way it wont matter anyways since inflation, for the most part will nullify their pay increase.

reply to post by Aazadan

a 4% interest rate (I couldn't find the actual interest rates but plenty of comparisons that 4.17% was the lowest average rate since the 50's)

You're a bit low. 4.75% would be a better figure.
www.nber.org...

That gives a monthly payment of $48. That's 38% of your income. You aren't going to qualify for a mortgage so you're going to be renting.

You've left income taxes out of your calculations. In 1955 you would have paid 20%, that's $300
www.irs.gov...

OASDI, 2%. That's $30
www.econdataus.com...

We've gotta eat, right? Are we a family? $12/week enough? It better be because that's all you have left. Gas was cheap but you can't afford a car anyway.

There's a reason the poverty level was at $3,000.

The fact that we're outsourcing jobs and replacing them with Starbucks workers.

So, no source then.

well i was just doing the math. checking out mcd's statistics (profits vs 1.8million staff) i came up with almost the same thing this website came up with. and as the website mentions "this is for the corporate parent not the franchises".

i had originally allocated 2 billion from the profits which could be allocated to employee salaries. but i expect the experts at kansas would have done a much more in-depth and professional report than i could do in 5 minutes research. theyve narrowed it down further by stating that management already gets paid well so none of the money needs to go to the management. and the excess when allocated to the lowest paid staff could result in a doubling of their salaries.

i came up with a $100 per month raise for each member of staff which equated roughly to a $1.25 per hour increase in the hourly rate. im sure the burger flippers would be grateful for just that. but leaving a well paid management out of the loop and allocating 3bn instead of 2bn.. well read the report for urself.


www.businessinsider.com...

That possibility is that McDonald's could double its restaurant-worker wages and not increase its prices at all ... but instead just make a little less money. In other words, it could better balance the interests of all three of its stakeholders — shareholders, customers, and employees — instead of shafting employees to deliver as much profit as possible to shareholders.

According to the Kansas City researcher who did the original wages-to-Big Mac study, McDonald's spends about 17% of U.S. revenue on employee salaries and benefits. If that ratio holds true worldwide, McDonald's would have spent about $4.7 billion on salaries and benefits last year, on revenue of $27 billion. Meanwhile, the company made about $8.5 billion of operating income. (This is for the corporate parent, not the franchises.).

If McDonald's doubled the wages of its restaurant employees (not management, which is presumably very well-compensated), it might add, say, another $3 billion of annual expenses. This would knock its operating profit down to a still healthy $5.5 billion.

Importantly, however, $5.5 billion is still a lot of money. McDonald's would still be very profitable.

edit on 31-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)