|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Homeless in Seattle
On 4/23/2019 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:00:21 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: Our economic system generates more profits to those who reduce expenses, and employees are seen as expenses. -- - Frank Krygowski Yes, one of the economic problems with slavery. There are many moral problems with slavery of course. But in current and even past times when employees can be paid a subsistence wage or minimum wage, it is much cheaper to hire people at poverty wages than it is to have slaves. Slaves, because they are personal property, require food, housing, medical care. All of which adds up to much more than subsistence wages paid to desperate employees. Employee wages are of course a tax deductible expense. Not sure how slave owners dealt with slave upkeep expenses. Actually not sure when the US started the federal income taxes. Maybe it was after slavery officially ended. :-) A federal income tax was originally enacted on October 1913. According to: Slave Prices in the Lower South, 1722-1815 Peter C. Mancall, Joshua L. Rosenbloom, Thomas Weiss University of Kansas In 1815 the median price of a male slave was $500 (which is !$7,958.44 in 2017). Salaries for a skilled craftsman, in Massachusetts, in 1815, was in the range of $2.00 a day, for unskilled workers it was in the $1.00 a day range. So yes, as the North had learned, hiring help was cheaper... ? If you paid $500 for a slave you had him for the rest of his life. You'd spend that much on an unskilled worker in a year and a half, and have to keep on spending. True, there would be some cost in housing and feeding a slave, but it seemed they tended to minimize that expense. Then there was the possibility of profiting by breeding. ... at least for those who didn't operate a large plantation, was cheaper than buying and maintaining slaves. I wonder about other North-South differences. My vague impression is that the north was using its labor more to populate factories - to produce iron, fabrics, mechanical devices, etc. while the south was using its labor to harvest and bale cotton and other agricultural goods. In the one case, the workers could be brought to the specific place where the work was done - indeed, could be brought there from overseas if necessary. And if one worker or group of workers were unproductive or made trouble, there were plenty more waiting to take their place. Seems it was different on a southern plantation. You had to run your plantation with the workers you had - or owned. Not that I'm an expert on this, by any means. But I know that contrary to popular belief, slavery was almost universal through most of human history. It certainly wasn't just the evil American southerners vs. the helpless folks they captured in Africa. And I recall reading that one main reason the North was able to get rid of slavery was because machines had been invented to do the work. The Roman empire (for just one example) could not have sustained itself without slaves. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Homeless in Seattle
On 4/23/2019 8:04 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:14:16 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 4/23/2019 1:00 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: Our economic system generates more profits to those who reduce expenses, and employees are seen as expenses. -- - Frank Krygowski Yes, one of the economic problems with slavery. There are many moral problems with slavery of course. But in current and even past times when employees can be paid a subsistence wage or minimum wage, it is much cheaper to hire people at poverty wages than it is to have slaves. Slaves, because they are personal property, require food, housing, medical care. All of which adds up to much more than subsistence wages paid to desperate employees. Employee wages are of course a tax deductible expense. Not sure how slave owners dealt with slave upkeep expenses. Actually not sure when the US started the federal income taxes. Maybe it was after slavery officially ended. 1914 and 1% to 7% on extremely high incomes. The Amendment passed because all and sundry assured it would never affect the average guy. The Founders knew better, which is why the original Constitution prohibited such taxes. BTW before you get excited about 'wage slavery', the quit rate is way up, that is, more employees are leaving for better situations. I've always sort of laughed when "wage slavery" is mentioned. After all, it isn't the factory owner that sets the wages it is the labour force. The minimum that they will accept. And these days, American workers - who live in a relatively expensive country - have to compete against millions of workers in places where living costs (and expected amenities) are far, far lower. Those workers accept far less than the Americans can. My area has lost lots and lots of decent-paying jobs, despite the promises made to workers by a certain occupant of the White House. GM has said over and over, "screw you, we can get this work done in Mexico and make lots more profit." For other industries, substitute China, or India, or Southeast Asia, etc. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Homeless in Seattle
On 4/23/2019 7:04 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:14:16 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 4/23/2019 1:00 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: Our economic system generates more profits to those who reduce expenses, and employees are seen as expenses. -- - Frank Krygowski Yes, one of the economic problems with slavery. There are many moral problems with slavery of course. But in current and even past times when employees can be paid a subsistence wage or minimum wage, it is much cheaper to hire people at poverty wages than it is to have slaves. Slaves, because they are personal property, require food, housing, medical care. All of which adds up to much more than subsistence wages paid to desperate employees. Employee wages are of course a tax deductible expense. Not sure how slave owners dealt with slave upkeep expenses. Actually not sure when the US started the federal income taxes. Maybe it was after slavery officially ended. 1914 and 1% to 7% on extremely high incomes. The Amendment passed because all and sundry assured it would never affect the average guy. The Founders knew better, which is why the original Constitution prohibited such taxes. BTW before you get excited about 'wage slavery', the quit rate is way up, that is, more employees are leaving for better situations. I've always sort of laughed when "wage slavery" is mentioned. After all, it isn't the factory owner that sets the wages it is the labour force. The minimum that they will accept. I remember a young Indonesian mechanic I had working for me at a remote site in N.Sumatra. He asked me why I got so much money and he got so little. I told him "Quit!". That went on for a while and finally he tells me that he doesn't want to quit but he is curious and I told him that I would "quit". He thought about that for a while and then said that if he quit there was 10 other guys standing in line to get his job. I replied, "and that is why I get all that money and you get so little. As an aside, I once worked in a rather remote part of Irian Jaya, now West Papua, where the locals wouldn't accept money. It had no value to them :-) Back to that income tax thing. My grandfather, a railway roundhouse machinist, was worth about 30c an hour in 1910: https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/p...ages/1910-1919 when general labor (digging ditches, loading/unloading freight and shoveling horse poop off the streets) paid a lot less. The lowest 1914 tax bracket of $2000/year was a lot of money then. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Homeless in Seattle
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/23/2019 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:00:21 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: Our economic system generates more profits to those who reduce expenses, and employees are seen as expenses. -- - Frank Krygowski Yes, one of the economic problems with slavery. There are many moral problems with slavery of course. But in current and even past times when employees can be paid a subsistence wage or minimum wage, it is much cheaper to hire people at poverty wages than it is to have slaves. Slaves, because they are personal property, require food, housing, medical care. All of which adds up to much more than subsistence wages paid to desperate employees. Employee wages are of course a tax deductible expense. Not sure how slave owners dealt with slave upkeep expenses. Actually not sure when the US started the federal income taxes. Maybe it was after slavery officially ended. :-) A federal income tax was originally enacted on October 1913. According to: Slave Prices in the Lower South, 1722-1815 Peter C. Mancall, Joshua L. Rosenbloom, Thomas Weiss University of Kansas In 1815 the median price of a male slave was $500 (which is !$7,958.44 in 2017). Salaries for a skilled craftsman, in Massachusetts, in 1815, was in the range of $2.00 a day, for unskilled workers it was in the $1.00 a day range. So yes, as the North had learned, hiring help was cheaper... ? If you paid $500 for a slave you had him for the rest of his life. You'd spend that much on an unskilled worker in a year and a half, and have to keep on spending. True, there would be some cost in housing and feeding a slave, but it seemed they tended to minimize that expense. Then there was the possibility of profiting by breeding. -- - Frank Krygowski John B. wrote that the daily wage of unskilled labor was $1 per day. Lets say $250 per year. And I have read many, many times that in olden times that laborers earned just barely enough to survive. Everything they earned was used for housing, food, etc. Nothing was leftover for savings. So I think we could estimate the slave owner costs for keeping one slave for a year at about $250. The same wages paid to an unskilled laborer. Back in the 1700-1800s time period I doubt the cost of living was that different across the states. So a slave owner pays $250 to house and feed his slave each year. A unskilled wage earner is paid $250 each year. And he uses every penny of this to live on. But the slave owner has to pay $500, two years wages, up front to get the slave before he pays the $250 annual cost to keep the slave. Seems the slave owner starts $500 in the hole. And of course the slave owner also has to pay for management, guards to make the slaves work. In most situations, slavery was not the economic godsend some people seem to imagine. And remember slavery also existed simply because there was not enough labor, people to do the work. That is the better reason for slavery to exist in the USA. But if there are enough laborers (northern factory towns), then slavery loses its economic advantage. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Homeless in Seattle
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 20:48:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/23/2019 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:00:21 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: Our economic system generates more profits to those who reduce expenses, and employees are seen as expenses. -- - Frank Krygowski Yes, one of the economic problems with slavery. There are many moral problems with slavery of course. But in current and even past times when employees can be paid a subsistence wage or minimum wage, it is much cheaper to hire people at poverty wages than it is to have slaves. Slaves, because they are personal property, require food, housing, medical care. All of which adds up to much more than subsistence wages paid to desperate employees. Employee wages are of course a tax deductible expense. Not sure how slave owners dealt with slave upkeep expenses. Actually not sure when the US started the federal income taxes. Maybe it was after slavery officially ended. :-) A federal income tax was originally enacted on October 1913. According to: Slave Prices in the Lower South, 1722-1815 Peter C. Mancall, Joshua L. Rosenbloom, Thomas Weiss University of Kansas In 1815 the median price of a male slave was $500 (which is !$7,958.44 in 2017). Salaries for a skilled craftsman, in Massachusetts, in 1815, was in the range of $2.00 a day, for unskilled workers it was in the $1.00 a day range. So yes, as the North had learned, hiring help was cheaper... ? If you paid $500 for a slave you had him for the rest of his life. You'd spend that much on an unskilled worker in a year and a half, and have to keep on spending. True, there would be some cost in housing and feeding a slave, but it seemed they tended to minimize that expense. Then there was the possibility of profiting by breeding. ... at least for those who didn't operate a large plantation, was cheaper than buying and maintaining slaves. I wonder about other North-South differences. My vague impression is that the north was using its labor more to populate factories - to produce iron, fabrics, mechanical devices, etc. while the south was using its labor to harvest and bale cotton and other agricultural goods. In the one case, the workers could be brought to the specific place where the work was done - indeed, could be brought there from overseas if necessary. And if one worker or group of workers were unproductive or made trouble, there were plenty more waiting to take their place. Seems it was different on a southern plantation. You had to run your plantation with the workers you had - or owned. Prior to the Civil War cotton was literally king. The export of cotton by 1840 was worth more than all of all other U.S. exports combined. To effectively raise and pick cotton before the advent of mechanized pickers (some time in the 1930's I think) it required a large labor force and given that on a large plantation growing sufficient food and providing rudimentary shelter was relatively cheap it made slavery an economical way to operate.. In contrast the North which was largely industrialized found slavery was largely uneconomical - no place to house them and no way to raise sufficient food down at the factory site. Not that I'm an expert on this, by any means. But I know that contrary to popular belief, slavery was almost universal through most of human history. It certainly wasn't just the evil American southerners vs. the helpless folks they captured in Africa. Certainly not. In fact of the slaves from Africa the majority weren't shipped to the U.S. I believe that only some 6% of enslaved Africans actually ended up in N. America, There seems to be evidence that enslaved Africans were shipped to Africa, Europe, and Asia prior to the European colonization of the Americas. (Ferro, Mark (1997). Colonization: A Global History. Routledge, p. 221, ISBN 978-0-415-14007-2.) And I recall reading that one main reason the North was able to get rid of slavery was because machines had been invented to do the work. The Roman empire (for just one example) could not have sustained itself without slaves. -- Cheers, John B. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Homeless in Seattle
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 20:55:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/23/2019 8:04 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:14:16 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 4/23/2019 1:00 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: Our economic system generates more profits to those who reduce expenses, and employees are seen as expenses. -- - Frank Krygowski Yes, one of the economic problems with slavery. There are many moral problems with slavery of course. But in current and even past times when employees can be paid a subsistence wage or minimum wage, it is much cheaper to hire people at poverty wages than it is to have slaves. Slaves, because they are personal property, require food, housing, medical care. All of which adds up to much more than subsistence wages paid to desperate employees. Employee wages are of course a tax deductible expense. Not sure how slave owners dealt with slave upkeep expenses. Actually not sure when the US started the federal income taxes. Maybe it was after slavery officially ended. 1914 and 1% to 7% on extremely high incomes. The Amendment passed because all and sundry assured it would never affect the average guy. The Founders knew better, which is why the original Constitution prohibited such taxes. BTW before you get excited about 'wage slavery', the quit rate is way up, that is, more employees are leaving for better situations. I've always sort of laughed when "wage slavery" is mentioned. After all, it isn't the factory owner that sets the wages it is the labour force. The minimum that they will accept. And these days, American workers - who live in a relatively expensive country - have to compete against millions of workers in places where living costs (and expected amenities) are far, far lower. Those workers accept far less than the Americans can. Certainly that is correct but within my lifetime the U.S. workers received far lower wages for their services than they do today. My area has lost lots and lots of decent-paying jobs, despite the promises made to workers by a certain occupant of the White House. GM has said over and over, "screw you, we can get this work done in Mexico and make lots more profit." For other industries, substitute China, or India, or Southeast Asia, etc. Actually Henry Ford thought of it before anyone else did - make a car so cheap that my employees can afford one... and made a huge chunk of cash doing so. But remember that the U.S. did exactly the same thing, Ever heard about "Oil for the lamps of China" when Mobile gave away kerosene lamps to encourage the sale of lamp oil, i.e., kerosene, as did Great Briton and post WW II did Japan, and now China. There was even a Japanese song entitled "The Celluloid Doll From America" that told the story about the cheap celluloid doll from America that was so pretty, but so easily broken :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Homeless in Seattle
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 20:05:50 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/23/2019 7:04 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:14:16 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 4/23/2019 1:00 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: Our economic system generates more profits to those who reduce expenses, and employees are seen as expenses. -- - Frank Krygowski Yes, one of the economic problems with slavery. There are many moral problems with slavery of course. But in current and even past times when employees can be paid a subsistence wage or minimum wage, it is much cheaper to hire people at poverty wages than it is to have slaves. Slaves, because they are personal property, require food, housing, medical care. All of which adds up to much more than subsistence wages paid to desperate employees. Employee wages are of course a tax deductible expense. Not sure how slave owners dealt with slave upkeep expenses. Actually not sure when the US started the federal income taxes. Maybe it was after slavery officially ended. 1914 and 1% to 7% on extremely high incomes. The Amendment passed because all and sundry assured it would never affect the average guy. The Founders knew better, which is why the original Constitution prohibited such taxes. BTW before you get excited about 'wage slavery', the quit rate is way up, that is, more employees are leaving for better situations. I've always sort of laughed when "wage slavery" is mentioned. After all, it isn't the factory owner that sets the wages it is the labour force. The minimum that they will accept. I remember a young Indonesian mechanic I had working for me at a remote site in N.Sumatra. He asked me why I got so much money and he got so little. I told him "Quit!". That went on for a while and finally he tells me that he doesn't want to quit but he is curious and I told him that I would "quit". He thought about that for a while and then said that if he quit there was 10 other guys standing in line to get his job. I replied, "and that is why I get all that money and you get so little. As an aside, I once worked in a rather remote part of Irian Jaya, now West Papua, where the locals wouldn't accept money. It had no value to them :-) Back to that income tax thing. My grandfather, a railway roundhouse machinist, was worth about 30c an hour in 1910: Thirty cents an hour was about $2.70 for a 9 hour day. Damned good money! Plus working for the railroad was thought of as almost as good as working for the government :-) https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/p...ages/1910-1919 when general labor (digging ditches, loading/unloading freight and shoveling horse poop off the streets) paid a lot less. The lowest 1914 tax bracket of $2000/year was a lot of money then. -- Cheers, John B. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Homeless in Seattle
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:07:41 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/23/2019 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:00:21 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: Our economic system generates more profits to those who reduce expenses, and employees are seen as expenses. -- - Frank Krygowski Yes, one of the economic problems with slavery. There are many moral problems with slavery of course. But in current and even past times when employees can be paid a subsistence wage or minimum wage, it is much cheaper to hire people at poverty wages than it is to have slaves. Slaves, because they are personal property, require food, housing, medical care. All of which adds up to much more than subsistence wages paid to desperate employees. Employee wages are of course a tax deductible expense. Not sure how slave owners dealt with slave upkeep expenses. Actually not sure when the US started the federal income taxes. Maybe it was after slavery officially ended. :-) A federal income tax was originally enacted on October 1913. According to: Slave Prices in the Lower South, 1722-1815 Peter C. Mancall, Joshua L. Rosenbloom, Thomas Weiss University of Kansas In 1815 the median price of a male slave was $500 (which is !$7,958.44 in 2017). Salaries for a skilled craftsman, in Massachusetts, in 1815, was in the range of $2.00 a day, for unskilled workers it was in the $1.00 a day range. So yes, as the North had learned, hiring help was cheaper... ? If you paid $500 for a slave you had him for the rest of his life. You'd spend that much on an unskilled worker in a year and a half, and have to keep on spending. True, there would be some cost in housing and feeding a slave, but it seemed they tended to minimize that expense. Then there was the possibility of profiting by breeding. -- - Frank Krygowski John B. wrote that the daily wage of unskilled labor was $1 per day. Lets say $250 per year. And I have read many, many times that in olden times that laborers earned just barely enough to survive. Everything they earned was used for housing, food, etc. Nothing was leftover for savings. So I think we could estimate the slave owner costs for keeping one slave for a year at about $250. The same wages paid to an unskilled laborer. Back in the 1700-1800s time period I doubt the cost of living was that different across the states. So a slave owner pays $250 to house and feed his slave each year. A unskilled wage earner is paid $250 each year. And he uses every penny of this to live on. But the slave owner has to pay $500, two years wages, up front to get the slave before he pays the $250 annual cost to keep the slave. Seems the slave owner starts $500 in the hole. And of course the slave owner also has to pay for management, guards to make the slaves work. In most situations, slavery was not the economic godsend some people seem to imagine. And remember slavery also existed simply because there was not enough labor, people to do the work. That is the better reason for slavery to exist in the USA. But if there are enough laborers (northern factory towns), then slavery loses its economic advantage. I'm not sure that when you are talking about what amounts to a large farm you can put a dollar value on living costs. After all, you are going to raise food for the family and it costs little more than labor to raise it for more people and the labor is free. Generally speaking meat animals, in the 1800's probably cost almost nothing to raise as they do replicate themselves and would generally be eating stuff that is growing on the place. When I was a kid we always had a cow and a couple of pigs. the cow ate hay that we raised and cut ourselves and because she was milking we fed her a measure of grain (don't remember what kind) a day. the pigs ate garbage and a bit of grain as we kept them penned, if they were "free range" than probably no feed at all. The cow had a calf every year and if a bull calf we ate him and if a heifer we sold her or replaced her mother and sold the cow. Chickens replace themselves and if not penned pretty much feed themselves with maybe some cracked corn that one can grow on the place.. If you are on a farm than food costs are surprisingly low... assuming that you have either kids or slaves to do the work :-) I think that in dollar and cents terms that having slaves on a large plantation would be essentially free as far as living costs were concerned. I'm guessing that clothing might be the largest cash cost that would be incurred. A new shirt and skirt,or trousers, at Christmas... -- Cheers, John B. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Homeless in Seattle
On 4/24/2019 12:07 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 7:48:30 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/23/2019 7:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:00:21 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: Our economic system generates more profits to those who reduce expenses, and employees are seen as expenses. -- - Frank Krygowski Yes, one of the economic problems with slavery. There are many moral problems with slavery of course. But in current and even past times when employees can be paid a subsistence wage or minimum wage, it is much cheaper to hire people at poverty wages than it is to have slaves. Slaves, because they are personal property, require food, housing, medical care. All of which adds up to much more than subsistence wages paid to desperate employees. Employee wages are of course a tax deductible expense. Not sure how slave owners dealt with slave upkeep expenses. Actually not sure when the US started the federal income taxes. Maybe it was after slavery officially ended. :-) A federal income tax was originally enacted on October 1913. According to: Slave Prices in the Lower South, 1722-1815 Peter C. Mancall, Joshua L. Rosenbloom, Thomas Weiss University of Kansas In 1815 the median price of a male slave was $500 (which is !$7,958.44 in 2017). Salaries for a skilled craftsman, in Massachusetts, in 1815, was in the range of $2.00 a day, for unskilled workers it was in the $1.00 a day range. So yes, as the North had learned, hiring help was cheaper... ? If you paid $500 for a slave you had him for the rest of his life. You'd spend that much on an unskilled worker in a year and a half, and have to keep on spending. True, there would be some cost in housing and feeding a slave, but it seemed they tended to minimize that expense. Then there was the possibility of profiting by breeding. -- - Frank Krygowski John B. wrote that the daily wage of unskilled labor was $1 per day. Lets say $250 per year. And I have read many, many times that in olden times that laborers earned just barely enough to survive. Everything they earned was used for housing, food, etc. Nothing was leftover for savings. So I think we could estimate the slave owner costs for keeping one slave for a year at about $250. The same wages paid to an unskilled laborer. Back in the 1700-1800s time period I doubt the cost of living was that different across the states. So a slave owner pays $250 to house and feed his slave each year. A unskilled wage earner is paid $250 each year. And he uses every penny of this to live on. But the slave owner has to pay $500, two years wages, up front to get the slave before he pays the $250 annual cost to keep the slave. Seems the slave owner starts $500 in the hole. And of course the slave owner also has to pay for management, guards to make the slaves work. In most situations, slavery was not the economic godsend some people seem to imagine. And remember slavery also existed simply because there was not enough labor, people to do the work. That is the better reason for slavery to exist in the USA. But if there are enough laborers (northern factory towns), then slavery loses its economic advantage. I don't know. But virtually every society until William Wilberforce kept slaves, frequently large numbers of them, and many (Sudan, Saudi etc) do today. Many people think of slavery in very limited domestic terms when in fact it's nearly universal and ageless. https://thepoliticalinsider.com/huma...arrests-surge/ https://csi-usa.org/slavery/ https://ahtribune.com/world/north-af...ex-slaves.html -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Should America Euthanize the Old People and Homeless? | Rod Speed | Social Issues | 0 | March 1st 11 05:23 PM |
Should America Euthanize the Old People and Homeless? | Rod Speed | Recumbent Biking | 0 | March 1st 11 05:23 PM |
Should America Euthanize the Old People and Homeless? | His Highness the TibetanMonkey, originator of the Stop the Bullshit Campaign[_2_] | UK | 0 | February 10th 11 10:38 PM |
Homeless in Moab | paco | Unicycling | 2 | March 20th 06 06:56 AM |
Homeless Singletrack | [email protected] | Mountain Biking | 6 | December 29th 04 05:55 PM |