ADVERTISEMENT

Alleviating the grind of being poor

Rockfish1

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
36,255
6,841
113
The Times has some great reporting of the impact that even small wage increases have on the lives of people struggling in low-paying jobs:

For years, when American policymakers have debated the minimum wage, they have debated its effect on the labor market. Economists have gone around and around, rehashing the same questions about how wage bumps for the poorest workers could reduce employment, raise prices or curtail hours. What most didn’t ask was: When low-wage workers receive a pay increase, how does that affect their lives?

But recently, a small group of researchers scattered around the country have begun to pursue this long-neglected question, specifically looking into the public-health effects of a higher minimum wage. A 2011 national study showed that low-skilled workers reported fewer unmet medical needs in states with higher minimum-wage rates. In high-wage states, workers were better able to pay for the care they needed. In low-wage states, workers skipped medical appointments. Or consider the research on smoking. Big Tobacco has long targeted low-income communities, where three in four smokers in America now live, but studies have found strong evidence that increases to the minimum wage are associated with decreased rates of smoking among low-income workers. Higher wages ease the grind of poverty, freeing up people’s capacities to quit.

Some of the biggest beneficiaries of minimum wage increases are children. A 2017 study co-authored by Lindsey Bullinger, an assistant professor in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, found that raising the minimum wage by $1 would reduce child-neglect reports by almost 10 percent. Higher wages allow parents working in the low-wage labor market to keep the lights on and the refrigerator stocked; failing to do so can court neglect charges. “These studies show the positive externalities of increasing the minimum wage on serious outcomes, like reducing child abuse,” Bullinger said, issuing an eloquent barb at economists’ obsession with the “negative externalities” of minimum-wage hikes.

The list goes on. Studies have linked higher minimum wages to decreases in low birth-weight babies, lower rates of teen alcohol consumption and declines in teen births. A 2016 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that between roughly 2,800 and 5,500 premature deaths that occurred in New York City from 2008 to 2012 could have been prevented if the city’s minimum wage had been $15 an hour during that time, instead of a little over $7 an hour. That number represents up to one in 12 of all people who died prematurely in those five years. The chronic stress that accompanies poverty can be seen at the cellular level. It has been linked to a wide array of adverse conditions, from maternal health problems to tumor growth. Higher wages bring much-needed relief to poor workers. The lead author of the 2016 study, Tsu-Yu Tsao, a research director at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, was “very surprised by the magnitude of the findings.” He is unaware of any drug on the market that comes close to having this big of an effect.

A $15 minimum wage is an antidepressant. It is a sleep aid. A diet. A stress reliever. It is a contraceptive, preventing teenage pregnancy. It prevents premature death. It shields children from neglect. But why? Poverty can be unrelenting, shame-inducing and exhausting. When people live so close to the bone, a small setback can quickly spiral into a major trauma. Being a few days behind on the rent can trigger a hefty late fee, which can lead to an eviction and homelessness. An unpaid traffic ticket can lead to a suspended license, which can cause people to lose their only means of transportation to work. In the same way, modest wage increases have a profound impact on people’s well-being and happiness. Poverty will never be ameliorated on the cheap. But this truth should not prevent us from acknowledging how powerfully workers respond to relatively small income boosts.
Few of us who aren't struggling can appreciate how expensive it is to be poor or what an exhausting nerve-wracking grind it is to live close to the edge of disaster. We all have a limited amount of what for lack of a better word I'd call emotional energy. The soul-crushing stress of being poor can easily suck up the energy that might have been used to take steps away from the edge. Small ambitions that might seem cruelly out of reach aren't even possible for people so overwhelmed they can no longer conjure the energy to imagine them.

I'm a fan of economics, but it may be time for us to stop being governed by the debate economists are limited to having. We're not going to know if measures like higher minimum wage laws "work" until we try them. In the depths of the Great Depression, FDR didn't know if the measures he implemented would work. He just knew he had to try. Some things did work, and other things didn't. We obviously aren't facing a similar emergency today, but I still think it's time for some trial and error to help ordinary people in their daily lives. I'm not very interested right now in hearing that it can't work or that it's too expensive or that government is never the answer. I think the debate should be about which measures we're going to implement, and not whether it's possible for government to do anything at all. That latter question reflects the view that the comfortable invariably have about measures designed to help other people.
 
Last edited:
Good find. I suspect though we will hit the usual chicken/egg debate. Some people want to believe there is a just world and thus people are poor due to something they can change. They do not want to believe being poor increases the probability of people developing said bad habits due to stress.

Being poor is stressful, can that be disputed? Stress is hard on the human body and spirit, can that be disputed?
 
The Times has some great reporting of the impact that even small wage increases have on the lives of people struggling in low-paying jobs:

For years, when American policymakers have debated the minimum wage, they have debated its effect on the labor market. Economists have gone around and around, rehashing the same questions about how wage bumps for the poorest workers could reduce employment, raise prices or curtail hours. What most didn’t ask was: When low-wage workers receive a pay increase, how does that affect their lives?

But recently, a small group of researchers scattered around the country have begun to pursue this long-neglected question, specifically looking into the public-health effects of a higher minimum wage. A 2011 national study showed that low-skilled workers reported fewer unmet medical needs in states with higher minimum-wage rates. In high-wage states, workers were better able to pay for the care they needed. In low-wage states, workers skipped medical appointments. Or consider the research on smoking. Big Tobacco has long targeted low-income communities, where three in four smokers in America now live, but studies have found strong evidence that increases to the minimum wage are associated with decreased rates of smoking among low-income workers. Higher wages ease the grind of poverty, freeing up people’s capacities to quit.

Some of the biggest beneficiaries of minimum wage increases are children. A 2017 study co-authored by Lindsey Bullinger, an assistant professor in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, found that raising the minimum wage by $1 would reduce child-neglect reports by almost 10 percent. Higher wages allow parents working in the low-wage labor market to keep the lights on and the refrigerator stocked; failing to do so can court neglect charges. “These studies show the positive externalities of increasing the minimum wage on serious outcomes, like reducing child abuse,” Bullinger said, issuing an eloquent barb at economists’ obsession with the “negative externalities” of minimum-wage hikes.

The list goes on. Studies have linked higher minimum wages to decreases in low birth-weight babies, lower rates of teen alcohol consumption and declines in teen births. A 2016 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that between roughly 2,800 and 5,500 premature deaths that occurred in New York City from 2008 to 2012 could have been prevented if the city’s minimum wage had been $15 an hour during that time, instead of a little over $7 an hour. That number represents up to one in 12 of all people who died prematurely in those five years. The chronic stress that accompanies poverty can be seen at the cellular level. It has been linked to a wide array of adverse conditions, from maternal health problems to tumor growth. Higher wages bring much-needed relief to poor workers. The lead author of the 2016 study, Tsu-Yu Tsao, a research director at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, was “very surprised by the magnitude of the findings.” He is unaware of any drug on the market that comes close to having this big of an effect.

A $15 minimum wage is an antidepressant. It is a sleep aid. A diet. A stress reliever. It is a contraceptive, preventing teenage pregnancy. It prevents premature death. It shields children from neglect. But why? Poverty can be unrelenting, shame-inducing and exhausting. When people live so close to the bone, a small setback can quickly spiral into a major trauma. Being a few days behind on the rent can trigger a hefty late fee, which can lead to an eviction and homelessness. An unpaid traffic ticket can lead to a suspended license, which can cause people to lose their only means of transportation to work. In the same way, modest wage increases have a profound impact on people’s well-being and happiness. Poverty will never be ameliorated on the cheap. But this truth should not prevent us from acknowledging how powerfully workers respond to relatively small income boosts.
Few of us who aren't struggling can appreciate how expensive it is to be poor or what an exhausting nerve-wracking grind it is to live close to the edge of disaster. We all have a limited amount of what for lack of a better word I'd call emotional energy. The soul-crushing stress of being poor can easily suck up the energy that might have been used to take steps away from the edge. Small ambitions that might seem cruelly out of reach aren't even possible for people so overwhelmed they can no longer conjure the energy to imagine them.

I'm a fan of economics, but it may be time for us to stop being governed by the debate economists are limited to having. We're not going to know if measures like higher minimum wage laws "work" until we try them. In the depths of the Great Depression, FDR didn't know if the measures he implemented would work. He just knew he had to try. Some things did work, and other things didn't. We obviously aren't facing a similar emergency today, but I still think it's time for some trial and error to help ordinary people in their daily lives. I'm not very interested right now in hearing that it can't work or that it's too expensive or that government is never the answer. I think the debate should be about which measures we're going to implement, and not whether it's possible for government to do anything at all. That latter question reflects the view that the comfortable invariably have about measures designed to help other people.

I don't mean to hit and run, but have a full Saturday morning and hope to come back later to a thoughtful discussion on this topic. Just wanted to say that I agree that it's an important discussion to have. IMHO, a lot of what limits the poor is a lack of awareness of what is possible...both on the parts of the poor and society as a whole.
 
Good find. I suspect though we will hit the usual chicken/egg debate. Some people want to believe there is a just world and thus people are poor due to something they can change. They do not want to believe being poor increases the probability of people developing said bad habits due to stress.

Being poor is stressful, can that be disputed? Stress is hard on the human body and spirit, can that be disputed?

A good friend of mine who grew up in very rough circumstances likes to say, "It's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you don't have boots and you don't even know what bootstraps are." I hope some of our conservative brethren weigh in on this thread to discuss their ideas.
 
A good friend of mine who grew up in very rough circumstances likes to say, "It's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you don't have boots and you don't even know what bootstraps are." I hope some of our conservative brethren weigh in on this thread to discuss their ideas.

I don't know your friend's experiences, but my experience was that there were a lot of psychological issues. I was told often that one could not escape out, the evil people on the other side of town would never accept us. Then there was the idea that to get out one had to forget all their friends and family, which was of course bad. So not only does one have to have the bootstraps, one has to overcome the psychology.

There also was a common thread that anyone who makes it big has lied, cheated, and knocked people down to get there.
 
I hope some of our conservative brethren weigh in on this thread to discuss their ideas.

Here ya go.

What do you think about localizing minimum wages? A national minimum wage applied to rural Colorado would devastate many local economies. I assume the same would be true for many rurual localities. President Trump has advocated for localizing minimum wages, but that never received traction among the higher minimum wage advocates.

Of course minimum wages means nothing if there are no jobs that pay any wage. I've read a ton of material suggesting that minimum wage increases will push automation to replace some low-skilled jobs. On the other hand, here in Denver we have a labor shortage and we have homeless and unemployed people panhandling within feet of "help wanted" signs. The new nearby grocery store has never been fully staffed in the two years it's been open. They offer higher than minimum as a starting wage. There are other forces at work here besides low wage issues.

According to this, addictions cause or exacerbate 70-90% of child abuse/neglect/welfare cases. That is consistent with what I know to be the case where I practiced. (oops, there I go again talking about experience). The connection between higher incomes and addictions is unclear. So I'm not sure we should view higher minimum wages as the antidote to child abuse/neglect/welfare issues. As usual, this is more of a social problem than an economic one.

In sum, I see lots of positives and negatives with higher minimum wages. I think many problems can be alleviated with localizing and adding age tiers to higher minimum wage legislation.
 
Most of us believe poverty is destructive.

The tough question is what to do about it.

As a country we haven't even studied the effects of the 1996 welfare reform which was our last attempt at dealing with poverty.

Rock is right about taking poverty seriously and discussing it. Unfortunately it isn't going to happen even at the cooler much less nationally.
 
Do people really think if we would implement a $15. Hour minimum wage, Business owners are not going to pass that expense along to their customers.
The only time people are equal are the day they are born.
 
  • Like
Reactions: td75
Most of us believe poverty is destructive.

The tough question is what to do about it.

As a country we haven't even studied the effects of the 1996 welfare reform which was our last attempt at dealing with poverty.

Rock is right about taking poverty seriously and discussing it. Unfortunately it isn't going to happen even at the cooler much less nationally.
I’m not thinking only of people who live in poverty. Lots of people I’d regard as the working poor are living above the poverty line but still face great strain.
 
Worrying about the poor doesn’t make you a dime or help your family! You should mind your own business and quit trying to tell people how to live their life’s. We have to have rich and poor alike to make Society work.
 
I’m not thinking only of people who live in poverty. Lots of people I’d regard as the working poor are living above the poverty line but still face great strain.

Good point Rock.

Reviewing how the poverty line threshold is established is long overdue and should be part of the discussion.
 
So many factors.

One that I think is ignored is the state of financial illiteracy many suffer from (and not just the poor; the non-poor at least can afford to pay the price for their ignorance). Saving is essentially unheard of among the low wage working class people I'm associated with. High cost borrowing is rampant (payday loans, tax refund loans, cars from JD Byrider, etc.).

That said, these same people are survivors, when the chips are down they do what they have to do. The problem is, their situations are so precarious, the chips are down more often than not. They lurch from one crisis to the next. Unplanned expenses, even what most would consider minor, prevent them from gaining traction.

Good personal money management requires long term thinking and discipline, attributes that are sorely lacking across all social strata. It's just a difference of magnitude. The working stiff that gets his 55" flat screen from Rent-A-Center is no different that the bank manager who leases his car.
 
Yet, there is a war in this country against the nuclear family.
And another question: who, specifically, is waging this "war"? What tactics are they deploying and what weapons are they using? And where have we fallen short in defending against this aggression?

I'm hoping for a serious, fact based discussion rather than a battle of platitudes.
 
And another question: who, specifically, is waging this "war"? What tactics are they deploying and what weapons are they using? And where have we fallen short in defending against this aggression?

I'm hoping for a serious, fact based discussion rather than a battle of platitudes.
Feminists, for one.

 
The single greatest indicator of poverty in this country is single parent households.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3d931db7f68_story.html?utm_term=.df28ae5cbe15

Yet, there is a war in this country against the nuclear family.

https://slate.com/business/2015/03/...liberals-shouldn-t-be-afraid-to-admit-it.html

We should be encouraging and supporting the traditional family unit because of its effects on poverty.

Hoops doc, your link stated, " Do the arithmetic. Together, single-parent families and their children totaled almost 14 million people, which is roughly a third of all people in poverty." How does this amount to the single greatest factor?

Also a Mom or Dad in poverty with children might have considerable difficulty in finding any mate, much less a mate with enough income to take the whole family out of poverty.

In addition many of these single parents may already be divorced which makes them poor candidates for marriage. We cannot assume all the children were born out of wedlock.
 
the biggest reason by miles for any regression in the family, is women entering the workforce.

not only does it have it's financial impact, but it closely mingles the wives and the husbands with others of the opposite sex, all day every day, while their spouse is across town out of sight out of mind, and the kids at school or the sitter.

you can't have the two worker marriage , and have the spouses as bound as they are in a one worker scenario.

it never was a war waged by anyone. it was an unintended consequence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01 and td75
Income distribution will always have earners at the low end. The question I don’t think is eliminating low wages but instead how to provide a path away from the low end.

Individuals and families do move in and out of the lowest quintile of income and the poverty line. The path for some goes both ways.

Unemployment, death of a spouse, disability, illness, divorce, business failures, etc.
can put individuals and families on a temporary or permanent path into poverty.

Finally, as you point out CoH, there will always be poverty.
 
And another question: who, specifically, is waging this "war"? What tactics are they deploying and what weapons are they using? And where have we fallen short in defending against this aggression?

I'm hoping for a serious, fact based discussion rather than a battle of platitudes.
Feminists, for one.

Haha. Of course, damn those feminists . I wasn’t able to open link.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T.M.P.
Here ya go.

What do you think about localizing minimum wages? A national minimum wage applied to rural Colorado would devastate many local economies. I assume the same would be true for many rurual localities. President Trump has advocated for localizing minimum wages, but that never received traction among the higher minimum wage advocates.

Of course minimum wages means nothing if there are no jobs that pay any wage. I've read a ton of material suggesting that minimum wage increases will push automation to replace some low-skilled jobs. On the other hand, here in Denver we have a labor shortage and we have homeless and unemployed people panhandling within feet of "help wanted" signs. The new nearby grocery store has never been fully staffed in the two years it's been open. They offer higher than minimum as a starting wage. There are other forces at work here besides low wage issues.

According to this, addictions cause or exacerbate 70-90% of child abuse/neglect/welfare cases. That is consistent with what I know to be the case where I practiced. (oops, there I go again talking about experience). The connection between higher incomes and addictions is unclear. So I'm not sure we should view higher minimum wages as the antidote to child abuse/neglect/welfare issues. As usual, this is more of a social problem than an economic one.

In sum, I see lots of positives and negatives with higher minimum wages. I think many problems can be alleviated with localizing and adding age tiers to higher minimum wage legislation.

Thanks! Appreciate you making a serious effort at weighing in. I'm a big supporter of localized minimum wages. Unfortunately, people in places like Los Angeles have to do a better job of understanding how different life in rural Colorado (or Indiana or Georgia, etc.) is from urban LA life. And vice versa.

Along the lines of what you note in terms of their needing to be jobs for minimum wage legislation to be effective, I always was a fan of the way Jack Kemp pushed "enterprise zones" and I know President Trump has picked this up somewhat (although the idea hasn't gotten much traction or attention amidst all of his other "priorities"). Magic Johnson has done some great work in helping revitalize parts of Los Angeles in this spirit. I've not seen the idea applied as much to rural areas, but it's a good approach to helping struggling rural communities (there's just not a lot of votes in those communities for politicians to feel the need to address it.)
And I'd respectfully disagree somewhat (despite your experience :)) that child abuse/neglect/welfare issues are an either/or solution. Addiction is certainly a problem that intersects with poverty, but a lot of research I've seen indicates that it's because of the thinner margins of insulation from the impacts of that problem. It's much easier to be a functional addict when you have an income cushion that allows you to weather life stresses.

Good stuff!
 
It's much easier to be a functional addict when you have an income cushion that allows you to weather life stresses.

It's much easier to be a functional [fill in the blank with addict, alcoholic, single mother, absentee father, gambler, spendthrift, adulterer, glutton, on and on] when you can afford it. That's one reason I have a problem with painting the poor with a wide, "societal pathology" brush. Societal pathologies aren't limited to the lowest economic classes.
 
So many factors.

One that I think is ignored is the state of financial illiteracy many suffer from (and not just the poor; the non-poor at least can afford to pay the price for their ignorance). Saving is essentially unheard of among the low wage working class people I'm associated with. High cost borrowing is rampant (payday loans, tax refund loans, cars from JD Byrider, etc.).

That said, these same people are survivors, when the chips are down they do what they have to do. The problem is, their situations are so precarious, the chips are down more often than not. They lurch from one crisis to the next. Unplanned expenses, even what most would consider minor, prevent them from gaining traction.

Good personal money management requires long term thinking and discipline, attributes that are sorely lacking across all social strata. It's just a difference of magnitude. The working stiff that gets his 55" flat screen from Rent-A-Center is no different that the bank manager who leases his car.


I've long advocated strengthening usury laws/enforcement for payday lenders.
 
I've long advocated strengthening usury laws/enforcement for payday lenders.
They are scum. And yet, if you put the bloodsuckers out of business, who will give these people short term loans to fix the JD Byrider car that they're still making payments on?
 
They are scum. And yet, if you put the bloodsuckers out of business, who will give these people short term loans to fix the JD Byrider car that they're still making payments on?


Payday lenders only exist in certain states. Some places have never allowed them (about 1/3rd of the population).

Those places have managed to do much better:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-banned/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7a4c778a364d



Indiana seems to be on the brink of major reforms on capping interest rates. 36% is still astronomical, but it's a hell of a lot better than the mafia levels of 300+% that are currently allowed. Actually think the mob bosses never approached that level

https://www.wboi.org/post/committee-passes-cap-reduce-payday-lending-interest-rates#stream/0
 
Last edited:
It's much easier to be a functional [fill in the blank with addict, alcoholic, single mother, absentee father, gambler, spendthrift, adulterer, glutton, on and on] when you can afford it. That's one reason I have a problem with painting the poor with a wide, "societal pathology" brush. Societal pathologies aren't limited to the lowest economic classes.

Being an addict is a social pathology. "Those who can affort it" become poor because of this pathology. Jobs, family, money, and self-respect . . . . gone. As Hoot noted, the path to poverty is a two way street.
 
Last edited:
Thanks! Appreciate you making a serious effort at weighing in. I'm a big supporter of localized minimum wages. Unfortunately, people in places like Los Angeles have to do a better job of understanding how different life in rural Colorado (or Indiana or Georgia, etc.) is from urban LA life. And vice versa.

Along the lines of what you note in terms of their needing to be jobs for minimum wage legislation to be effective, I always was a fan of the way Jack Kemp pushed "enterprise zones" and I know President Trump has picked this up somewhat (although the idea hasn't gotten much traction or attention amidst all of his other "priorities"). Magic Johnson has done some great work in helping revitalize parts of Los Angeles in this spirit. I've not seen the idea applied as much to rural areas, but it's a good approach to helping struggling rural communities (there's just not a lot of votes in those communities for politicians to feel the need to address it.)
And I'd respectfully disagree somewhat (despite your experience :)) that child abuse/neglect/welfare issues are an either/or solution. Addiction is certainly a problem that intersects with poverty, but a lot of research I've seen indicates that it's because of the thinner margins of insulation from the impacts of that problem. It's much easier to be a functional addict when you have an income cushion that allows you to weather life stresses.

Good stuff!

I know a lot about one small rural Colorado community. It is slowly disappearing. The timber/lumber industry is gone. The mining industry is gone. The rail line has been sold for scrap. The only thing left is the cattle industry and that is being targeted by those who live hundreds of miles away. Even at that, much of the cattle ranching is owned by those who made their wealth in other ways. The nearest doctor, lawyer, dentist, grocer, and things we take for granted are 60 miles away. The town survives with a Family Dollar, a couple of liquor stores, a couple of beauty shops, a Bank, and two cafes. Nowadays there is some O&G production. Oh, and the Orvis fly shop. Much of the economy is recreationalists. All the businesses are a labors of love and provide jobs for high school kids and others who call it home. The community is by no means wealthy, but the people I know love it there and would never leave. A national minimum wage requirement would kill this place.
 
Being an addict is a social pathology. "Those who can affort it" become poor because of this pathology. Jobs, family, money, and self-respect . . . . gone. As Hoot noted, the path to poverty is a two way street.
The vast majority of substance abusers have not lost everything and are not destitute. That is the last stage in the progression. Most are able to arrest it before they get to that point. The Hyde Park neighborhood in Bloomington is full of drunks and druggies. Few will end up in a westside trailer park.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoosboot and DABFAN
The vast majority of substance abusers have not lost everything and are not destitute. That is the last stage in the progression. Most are able to arrest it before they get to that point. The Hyde Park neighborhood in Bloomington is full of drunks and druggies. Few will end up in a westside trailer park.

I don't know about "vast majority". But it is also undeniable that the vast majority of homeless and those living in poverty are burdened with addictions. The connection between poverty and addictions has been studied ad infinitum. There are no firm conclusions about cause and effect. But I think we can all agree that addictions can be reduced if the addicts have purpose in life. That would include meaningful employment.

Part of the problem in Colorado, and other legal weed states, is that many good jobs require clean drug tests. Depending on the user, THC can remain detectable for up to 30 days after the last use. That cuts down a lot of opportunities and it creates labor shortages in many occupations.
 
I don't know about "vast majority". But it is also undeniable that the vast majority of homeless and those living in poverty are burdened with addictions. The connection between poverty and addictions has been studied ad infinitum. There are no firm conclusions about cause and effect. But I think we can all agree that addictions can be reduced if the addicts have purpose in life. That would include meaningful employment.

Part of the problem in Colorado, and other legal weed states, is that many good jobs require clean drug tests. Depending on the user, THC can remain detectable for up to 30 days after the last use. That cuts down a lot of opportunities and it creates labor shortages in many occupations.

One wonders the net effect of de-institutionalization from the 60s and whether or not people are actually better off. Here's an interesting short summary that highlights the pros and cons.

http://www.uniteforsight.org/mental-health/module2
 
One wonders the net effect of de-institutionalization from the 60s and whether or not people are actually better off. Here's an interesting short summary that highlights the pros and cons.

http://www.uniteforsight.org/mental-health/module2

Involuntary treatment or institutionalization of mentally ill is unconstitutional unless it can be established that the individual is a danger to themselves or others. That usually means imminent danger to themselves, not long term because of poor life styles. Even if that standard can be met, the institutionalization is for a short time.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT