Highlights and Lowlights From March's Jobs Report

Easy come, easy go. After three months of strong growth, 120,000 jobs were created in March -- the least since October, and below the average of about 200,000 over the prior six months. The unemployment rate fell to 8.2%, or the lowest since January 2009. The Dow Jones (INDEX: ^DJI  ) fell more than 1% this morning, likely in reaction.

What should you make of it? Not much. No one-month report should be taken too seriously. Nearly all initial jobs reports are eventually revised, often substantially. Since last October, initial employment reports have been revised upwards by a cumulative 290,000 jobs. Highlighting the impreciseness of economic data, the Economist gave wonderful grain-of-salt context for the jobs numbers Friday:

There is a 90% chance that employment rose by between 20,000 and 220,000 jobs. The change in the number of unemployed from February to March was probably between (roughly) -400,000 and 150,000, and there's a good chance that the unemployment rate is between 8.1% and 8.5%. Reported changes for important subsectors are too small relative to the margin of error to be worth discussing. In all probability, the employment growth has remained close to the recent trend of a 200,000 jobs per month increase.

That, folks, is the most honest and practical jobs-report summary you will ever see.

But, there are a few broader trends in the jobs data worth pointing out -- some positive, some negative.

The six-month average jobs-creation figure is now around 200,000 per month. That's not great, given the severity of job losses in 2008 and 2009. But, it's more than the rate of population growth; if sustained, it should bring the unemployment rate down slowly over time. According to the Brookings Institute, demographic changes mean the number of new jobs needed to keep up with population growth is now about 100,000 a month, down from 130,000 a month a few years ago. We're still moving fast enough in the right direction to make a difference, in other words.

But it's important to emphasize how long it could be before things look normal again. Reuters has a neat calculator showing how long it will be before we hit a target unemployment rate at a given level of jobs growth. Averaging 200,000 new jobs a month, it will be -- I'm not making this up -- May 2021 before the unemployment rate is back to 6%. To get the unemployment rate down to 6% by 2014 would require monthly jobs growth of nearly double our current trend.

A broader measure of unemployment that includes those involuntarily working part time and those discouraged from even looking for a job is dropping fast. The so-called U6 unemployment rate fell to 14.5% in March, down from 16.4% as recently as September. Workers classified as part time for economic reasons have declined by more than 550,000 year to date, suggesting marginal workers are moving into full-time work. That's a good thing.

Then again, many of the new jobs being created are hardly high-paying careers. Among all workers, average hourly incomes rose 2.1% in the last year, and weekly earnings are up 2.6% (thanks to working more hours). But inflation was 2.9% over the last year, so the average worker is earning less in real terms than they were a year ago. And though it's hard to quantify, there's a lot of disparity hidden in those averages. A small set of workers are doing very well, while another larger group is falling behind alarmingly fast. In 2009 and 2010, 93% of the nation's income growth went to 1% of wage earners, according to economist Emmanuel Saez; 15,600 households captured 37% of all national growth. That's the kind of stuff you miss when focusing on averages.

A few other important points from the recent jobs report:

  • The unemployment rate for those with a college degree is 4.2%. For those with only a high-school diploma, it's 8%. For those who didn't complete high school, it's 12.6%. What's more expensive than college tuition these days? Not going to college.
  • January's jobs number was revised down by 9,000. February's was revised up by 13,000.
  • The average duration of unemployment is 39 weeks. That's down slightly, but still close to the highest level since the Great Depression.
  • One of the biggest factors keeping the unemployment rate high over the last three years has been a slashing of nearly 700,000 government workers. But it now looks like that trend is nearing an end. Total government employment has been stable since November.
  • When I interviewed economist Diane Swonk last year, she mentioned the rising rate of poverty among veterans, particularly women. Sure enough, the unemployment rate for women veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars rose to 10.8% in March, from 7.5% a year ago. The overall unemployment rate for all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is 10.3%, down from 10.9% a year ago.

What do you think about our jobs situation? Sound off in the comment section below.

Fool contributor Morgan Housel doesn't own shares in any of the companies mentioned in this article. Follow him on Twitter @TMFHousel. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.


Read/Post Comments (27) | Recommend This Article (46)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 12:15 PM, emferguson wrote:

    Most reporting missed context and even seemed to show no one reporting on the report read it. They just copied each other and copied the mistakes. To give some context, reporters should mention that the jobs number and the unemployment rates are based on two different surveys, one of employers and one of households, so some divergence is to be expected month to month.

    The reports on the unemployment rate missed that U-6, which is the broadest measure, including involuntarily part time and discouraged workers, dropped from 14.9% to 14.5%. That's a big drop for one month. The explanation was in the BLS report, which said there was a large drop in involuntarily part-time workers. Since the drop in the "official" (U-3) rate would have been an increase had they lost their jobs, they must have gained full-time hours. That's actually pretty good.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.htm

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 1:47 PM, SammyP1 wrote:

    Thanks for this unbiased and fair reporting. You can not make too much out of a single data point. Good or bad.

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 5:08 PM, HdwMan wrote:

    I see nothing in the "jobs report" on the effect of the large number of retirees leaving the workforce and are many of the "new" jobs not jobs that were held the month before by baby boomers?

    I bet the replacement jobs are re classified by most companies as the new younger hires are not paid as much as the seasoned employee!

    In fact, today, and for every day for the next 19 years, 10,000 baby boomers will reach age 65. Lets see, that is 3,650,000 a year are reaching retirement age. Yes many can't afford to retire, but I bet that it is over 75% that do!

    With that said, today's report barely covers the retirees! I can feel the love out there now...I tell my wife that I am a realist!

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 5:19 PM, sparkyguy8 wrote:

    Of the 120k jobs reported created in March, all but 30,000 of those jobs were, for lack of a better word, imaginary. Ninety thousand jobs were added as a result of the “birth-death model” calculation used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The “birth-death model” is a statistical assumption composed of two parts:

    a) The BLS assumes that if a business closes down, another will open in its place. So they don’t count businesses that close.

    b) An estimate of the number of businesses “born” and “died” over the past five years.

    This is as bad as how they count unemployment, inflation and off0book accounting.

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 5:42 PM, zaab55 wrote:

    Depends on which jobs we are talking about. In the manufacuring and fabrication areas we are seeing a shortage of qualified service employees. welders, mechanics, machine repair or machine building. The hands on trades. I know of many companys, including ours, looking for these qualified types. 2 year certificate jobs. The repair men I have seen recently to work on old lathes, mills, or any large equipment, I bet are pushing 50 and 60. In 10 to 15 years I bet more companys fail because this service will not exists. Heaven forbid anyone has to get dirty? The jobs are out there, if we can get out from behind the computer?

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 6:11 PM, akutach wrote:

    Morgan,

    I have seen similar numbers about higher than average unemployment among veterans as a subset of the population alongside the education-based divisions.

    I have yet to hear or see the veteran numbers qualified by comparing to the equivalently educated non-verteran cohort. The numbers are presented (or used) to show how much worse the job market is for veterans as if it's a veteran specific phenomenon and then after an interview it is concluded that it's not known why they struggle. But maybe veterans are right in line with the general population numbers after correcting for education.

    The number may suggest a legitimate call to investigate hiring bias for or against veterans, or to revamp retraining for civilian life. But it may just indicate the average education level of our military. I just don't know what to make of the numbers as they are presented.

    Alan

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 6:18 PM, physicsisphun wrote:

    A few months back I saw an interesting article about the disparity between the employer survey jobs report and the household survey jobs report. The numbers normally reported in the press almost always quote the former, but there are major discrepancies between the two--especially when a recovery is underway from a major shock. It's not hard to understand why. The employer survey data requires heavy extrapolation based on a model of where the hiring is occurring--but the household survey requires much less. So if the hiring patterns have changed a lot (as they certainly have since 2008!) then the jobs survey has a tendency to greatly underestimate the actual jobs growth during the recovery, because the model hasn't caught up. Significantly, since last summer, the household survey had been showing 2-3x the job growth shown by the employer survey (and I note it's the latter that is tracked in the press). I'd be curious to know whether that trend is continuing. The fact that U-6 has dropped so much more than U-3 suggests to me that it is. And if that is true, then the recovery might actually be a good bit more robust than folks think when they look only at the employer survey data. I'd be very interested in a foolish take on this possibility.

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Chontichajim wrote:

    For something intended to measure the impact on individuals I wonder why median is not used. We use median for community household incomes and housing costs since they are more reflective of what a typical person will encounter. For wage increases if most of it goes to 1% of earners a median wage increase, as opposed to average, would be more reflective of reality.

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 6:48 PM, piggy60 wrote:

    Why exactly do we believe anything the government reports? Assumptions? Count this, but not this, Etc.? We all know what the word "assume" means don't we? If not, just separate the first three letters from the last two letters ... it creates 3 discriptive words ...

    Until, and unless I see business stop hoarding cash, and start bringing jobs back into the USA, I'm not going to believe any of this. Don't be a blind Fool ... the second foot is about to drop in Europe, and China is in no great shape.

    Let's hope the US Supreme Court takes action on throwing out the healthcare bill ... that's an immediate $1.3T infusion of cash into the private sector, and will save thousands of jobs. I'm not saying something doesn't need to be done with healthcare, but let's use the "problem" to generate a solution that is good for the economy and makes a lot of people a lot of money. If we can combine that with some degree of fiscal conservatism in DC (how about just freezing spending and all new regulations for 3 years -doing nothing else) ... we'd start climbing out of this hole with our own growth.

    What business needs is certainty and stability. The economy sucks and continues to do so because we have neither. Let's take a breather, and give this wonderful engine of free markets a chance to rev up and blow all the gunk out of its injectors!

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 7:48 PM, BobLouden wrote:

    I think most commentators are concentrating on the trees and ignoring the forest; i.e., ignoring the big picture. We are in the process of automating all job categories except the most creative, starting with assembly lines and moving trough clerical jobs and ultimately automating architects, doctors and lawyers. College professors will be among the first to go as the best end up on the Internet and the rest end up unemployed. I expect to see national unemployment as follows:

    2020 20% national unemployment

    2030 30%

    2040 40%

    2050 50%

    ending up with 2090 90%.

    How can we possibly handle this? Well, that's the government's problem, and you know how resourceful and innovative they are.

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 8:31 PM, carjjc wrote:

    Most of the events that are far from normal result from humans doing things (for some unknown reason) not in there best interest. This thing called a great recession is real a little depresion (like the great depresion only smaller). It continues to be aggrivated by the need for our leaders to cut government spending and tax the poor at a time when we should be taxing the high earners and spending money fixing the infrastructure. Or little depression will end when we wake up and do the correct things for our economy. Thank goodness for an independent federal reserve and a leader willing to do the correct thing. If we did not have the federal reserve the conservitives in government would have created another great depression.

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 8:39 PM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    BobLouden,

    With 90% unemployment, one has to wonder who could pay for the services all those automated doctors, lawyers, and architects provide.

  • Report this Comment On April 09, 2012, at 8:57 PM, owup74 wrote:

    Just wish that when the Department Of Labor would publish the unemployment numbers they would use one formula that’s accurate and not switch them up when it suits the political needs of any party. zaa55 is right that there are jobs out there and if people would just stop being so picky they could have a job. There are plenty of manufacturing jobs, plenty of farm jobs out there and yes they may not be exactly a glorious one but they are still a job. Another thing is the government needs to shrink the government by getting rid of the IRS and let the Treasury department process and collect taxes and reduce DHS's role to just liaison and Intel sharing, Stop giving foreign aid to countries who hold US T-bills and T-bonds making those aid payments debt payments and stop giving welfare to illegal’s that’s their countries problem not ours but don’t get me wrong I am all for immigration as long as its legal which needs to seriously needs simplification and would not hurt to reduce the fees which costs a typical Immigrant over 1,000 USD for their immigration packet (filing fees, pictures, medical and logistics costs) to help bring in new ideas who can open companies and create jobs in America. (i.e. Munsk founder of Space X) Get rid of FATCA which is about to totally ruin our financial sector (look at what its done to Switzerland and now every country is looking for an alternative to NY to process foreign wire transfers which all of them throughout the world goes through) and take the economy (or what’s left of it) down as well as Obama care which guess how got those 2 passed. Lastly the thing that will help our unemployment is get these labor unions to stop pricing everyone out of a job. Remember companies are like the average person in that they to look for the biggest bang for their buck and if they are not getting it in the US guess what? They are going to go elsewhere. American workers have the potentental to do circles around every nation in the world including China but we keep pricing ourselves out of a job. Until those things happen the country is going to go farther into debt and in the long the country risks having unemployment skyrocket.

  • Report this Comment On April 10, 2012, at 10:36 AM, moneytrail wrote:

    Morgan:

    Pathetic.

    Your typical “Obama 2012” tripe.

    The US economy has at least 3 million fewer jobs (and workers) than there were in ’09; and, if the number of unemployed workers were properly applied, using the ’09 employment base – unemployment is 10.9%!

    Also, the percentage of working Americans (63%) is 3% - 4% below what it was in ’09, which is the lowest labor participation number since 1983.

    As we are about to enter the 4th year of Obama’s “recovery,” it is still the slowest recovery since FDR’s in the 1930’s, which is no surprise, since neither FDR nor Obama had nor have the slighest understanding of how the dynamic US economy works best: without government disintermediation and wealth re-distribution.

    Keep banging out the misinformation; your President would be proud of you. It is clear that your goal isn’t insightful investment analysis but, rather, election year spin of the worst kind.

  • Report this Comment On April 10, 2012, at 11:30 AM, moneytrail wrote:

    Morgan:

    Pathetic.

    Your typical “Obama 2012” tripe.

    The US economy has at least 3 million fewer jobs

    (and workers) than there were in ’09; and, if the number of unemployed workers were properly applied, using the ’09 employment base – unemployment is 10.9%!

    Also, the percentage of working Americans (63%) is 3% - 4% below what it was in ’09, which is the lowest labor participation number since 1983.

    As we are about to enter the 4th year of Obama’s “recovery,” it is still the slowest recovery since FDR’s in the 1930’s, which is no surprise, since FDR and Obama had and have no understanding of how the dynamic US economy works best: without government disintermediation and wealth re-distribution.

    Keep banging out the misinformation; your President would be proud of you. It is clear that your goal isn’t insightful investment analysis but, rather, election year spin of the worst kind.

  • Report this Comment On April 10, 2012, at 2:03 PM, kyleleeh wrote:

    <<Also, the percentage of working Americans (63%) is 3% - 4% below what it was in ’09, which is the lowest labor participation number since 1983.>>

    Why is that surprising with the number of baby boomers reaching retirement age, and the number of people going to college these days?

    Also, how is it spreading misinformation to write an article about how inacurate jobs reports are and how little can be can be garnered from a single report?

    Those are some pretty thick selective reading glasses you have on.

  • Report this Comment On April 10, 2012, at 4:18 PM, moneytrail wrote:

    The US economy is being systematically destroyed by:

    Obama’s addition of $5 trillion to our debt, with no relief in sight. The proof is the fact that his last 2 budgets have received zero votes (no dems or repubs) from the House and last year, from the Senate, which cynically refuses to fulfill its legal obligation mandating that it pass a budget;

    Obama policies causing food inflation to accelerate because of his reckless spending and the Fed’s endless stream of newly printed money;

    O’s incessant attack on productive, job creating private businesses and investors, which is why both groups are moving money to more welcome overseas environments;

    Encouraging America’s reliance on foreign energy by cutting new permits on federal lands by 36% since ’09 and shutting down the substantial portion of off-shore drilling, while pumping more than $16 billion into uneconomic “green” energy projects that enrich his money supporters and do nothing for America.

    Those who believe insane, government wealth destruction that targets economic success is the path to prosperity are undeterred by the obvious: under Obama the US economy is becoming a socialist system where makers and producers are reviled, while takers and beggars extend their hands for ever more “entitlements.”

  • Report this Comment On April 10, 2012, at 6:23 PM, kyleleeh wrote:

    @moneytrail

    Not one single thing you said in the above post has anything to do with this article. In fact the word "Obama" does not even appear in the article. Please explain how you find this article to be Obama cheerleding.

  • Report this Comment On April 11, 2012, at 12:16 PM, moneytrail wrote:

    Context: without it the Housel’s Article is nonsense.

    There is nothing anyone can say that will penetrate your or Housel’s ideological blind spot. Every element of my response presents elements of an economy in severe, structural decline, much of it attributable to O's ecomony, which will continue to deteriorate with time. This is the result of 3-1/2 years of Obama’s economic plans that revolve around the redistribution of income from producers to beggars.

    The President attacks job creators/investors, as evidenced by his words and his drive to increase taxes on the top 10% of income earners, who pay 73% of all taxes. If O is re-elected and taxes on dividends, cap gains and income are allowed to soar, you will see an economic downturn that will make the “Great Recession” look like an economic boom.

    It is in this context that looking at 200 thousand or 120 thousand monthly jobs numbers, as the jobs base contracts, is irrelevant unless the broader trends of the economy are taken into account. If it looks like O will be re-elected come September, I hope you, Housel and other Obama fools (small “f”) will line up to buy from sellers who clearly see the generational ditch the Country will find itself, as O transforms our once robust economy into a socialist, economic meat grinder.

    Good luck!

  • Report this Comment On April 11, 2012, at 12:24 PM, esbita wrote:

    <i> On April 09, 2012, at 5:42 PM, zaab55 wrote:

    Depends on which jobs we are talking about. In the manufacuring and fabrication areas we are seeing a shortage of qualified service employees. welders, mechanics, machine repair or machine building. The hands on trades. I know of many companys, including ours, looking for these qualified types. 2 year certificate jobs. The repair men I have seen recently to work on old lathes, mills, or any large equipment, I bet are pushing 50 and 60. In 10 to 15 years I bet more companys fail because this service will not exists. Heaven forbid anyone has to get dirty? The jobs are out there, if we can get out from behind the computer?

    </i>

    zaab55, what was the job market in this field like 10-15 years ago? Were new people being hired, or were old hands struggling to stay employed? Growing up in a Rust Belt town I remember more of the latter.

    It should come as no surprise that any industry with a long dry spell of opportunities will have trouble convincing good workers to pick up the trade. It's not so much getting dirty (otherwise why would people beat on the doors of med schools) but about stable, well paid jobs. This is part of the reason for the current IT shortages- ten years ago the IT market was terrible. Now more places are looking for people with 8-10 years of experience and wonder why these people are so scarce. It only gets worse when entry level workers in the affected industry can't get a foot in the door (exacerbating the IT shortages). Are you actually willing to hire people fresh out of that 2 year certificate program?

  • Report this Comment On April 11, 2012, at 4:07 PM, setht23 wrote:

    @moneytrail I'm definitely not an Obama supporter, but your attempt to blame all of our country's problems on one man leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Before criticizing others for their "ideological blindspot" you may want to examine your own. I'm sure four years ago you were angry at the Democrats for blaming all the nation's woes on Bush, don't be a hypocrite.

  • Report this Comment On April 11, 2012, at 10:54 PM, kyleleeh wrote:

    <<It is in this context that looking at 200 thousand or 120 thousand monthly jobs numbers, as the jobs base contracts, is irrelevant unless the broader trends of the economy are taken into account.>>

    For someone claiming that I have an ideological blind spot you don't even seem to read the articles you're bashing, from the article:

    "What should you make of it? Not much. No one-month report should be taken too seriously. "

    <<Every element of my response presents elements of an economy in severe, structural decline,>>

    Again read the article:

    "The average duration of unemployment is 39 weeks. That's down slightly, but still close to the highest level since the Great Depression."

    Try taking of those selective reading glasses before accusing others of having blindness.

    The world does not revolve around Obama, good things and bad things are going to happen no matter who is in the white house. Insisting that everything is caused by Obama only elevates him god like status...their are MANY other variables in life then just the president.

  • Report this Comment On April 12, 2012, at 10:58 AM, moneytrail wrote:

    I guess one can bring the horse to the water, but can't make him drink.

    Obama isn't the cause of all our economic ills, as I stated in my comments. There are technological and other structural issues affecting the global economy. But, O is the CEO of the country and his anti-growth policies in the areas of energy, business investment and increased handouts are his responsibility and if he wins another 4 years Amercia will be unrecognizeable in 2016..

    Regarding Housel's article, it is one of many where he presents isolated, selected info, like jobs numbers, in a way that may mislead unsophisticated investors to believe the economy is on the mend, when in fact it is still deteriorating. America's economy is being systematically destroyed by O's anti-business, anti-success policies and without that context isolated employment numbers are irrelevant to serious investment analysts, which Housel allegedly is.

    As far as "blaming" O for our current economic decline leaving a "bad taste" in anyone's mouth, if he gets re-elected, you ain't tasted nothing yet!

  • Report this Comment On April 13, 2012, at 1:11 PM, wishlist173 wrote:

    The causes of low employment generally receive no accurate analysis in the media, so let's start there. What has actually transpired in the Obama economy is to add debt to middle class taxpayers while continuing the hold of corporate sponsorship, bank lobbyists, hedge fund moguls and whoever else is on this "shadow" payroll. Whatever campaign promises Obama made have been sidelined and it is 1984 all over again.

    Fixing unemployment means creating real jobs . . . not lowering taxes. usually Presidents and other elected officials wake up during election years which means now there are only 6 months left to create MILLIONS of MEANINGFUL JOBS when 3-1/2 years have been utterly wasted.

  • Report this Comment On April 14, 2012, at 2:11 AM, piinob wrote:

    As anyone paying attention knows the jobs numbers are, at best rough estimates revised many times as data trickles in. They are, in fact, a trailing indicator of what goes on in the real woprld.

    Barry Ritholtz had a very good Bloomberg article pointing out that 51% of all jobs lost during Feb. were

    "quits" as opposed to fired or layed off.

    Meanwhile, according to Byron King of Outstanding Investments newsletter, (Hulberts top Rated over the last 10 years), we are on the cusp of an industrial rebirth of epic proportions as Europe sinks into a slump, China crashes, and the world begins to buy all their oil and gas from US, as in America. If that is too much for you to chew, go to South or West Texas, Pennsylvannia, Ohio, or Wyoming, Montana, or North Dakota.

    If you don't get your boots muddy, you don't know what is happening in the world. The folks in the entertainment biz, ie Fox, NBC, CBS, CNN et al, cannot tell you because they don't know either.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2012, at 12:37 PM, DJDynamicNC wrote:

    ---> "With 90% unemployment, one has to wonder who could pay for the services all those automated doctors, lawyers, and architects provide. " <---

    If only there was some political system in which most of the wealth created by those automated systems was redistributed to the populace at large rather than concentrated in the hands of the capital holders, such that the economy could continue to move along and people could find enhanced quality of life in an automated world.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, moneytrail wrote:

    There is such a system where wealth created by investing and hard work is redistributed to those who do not create wealth - it's called socialism/communism.

    If you read a book or two you would know it doesn't work becasue it defies human nature. Those who recieve beneftis from others successes will multiply and those who create wealth which is taken away by beggars in the form of Government eventually leave and settle where they can keep the fruits of their labor and risk taking.

    The only wealth redistribution that works is when those who make the wealth care for themselves, their families and friends becasue they know who deserves help; not when a government run by gangsters and theives take from the creators of wealth and redistribute it to those who vote for them whether deserving or not.

    Any such system will fail, which is why this President has failed. Hence, any articles pointing to "improvement in jobs numbers" indicating we have "turned a corner" (e.g.- Housel), without looking at the broader failed economic policies and a pending massive tax increase on Makers next January 1st, is either based on bias or ignorance and misleads those who actually take Housel's articles seriously.

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 1857587, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 7/25/2014 8:29:27 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement