Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

  1. #1
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    744
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    The last time this occured for this long a period was the Great Depression 1932-1936. If it is true that "China imports inflation in commodities (raw materials), and exports deflation in manufactured goods (because it makes them with ultra cheap labor), american families in manufacturing or small supply companies either as owners or workers can't get their wages hirer without losing market share to people who buy cheaper Chineese products. The financial storm of the centry would be collapse of Ford and GM (and loss of retirement benefits and health benefits in every community across the country to millions of retirees), increase in fuel prices to $4.00 to $5.00 a gal, increased high metal demand from China and India, increased amounts of low wages or recycling of workers to lower wage jobs due to outsourcing. Chavez in South America has said he would cut us off. Nigeria doesn't want to cut oil production but might have a revolution blocking oil, Iran could cut us off over the nuclear thing, and largest oil field in Mexico may have to reduce production by 50% soon. Here's the family income decline story. Again this hasn't happened in about 70 years in the U.S. Question: Does anybody have a plan on how to deal with this looming problem?
    Fed Study Finds Drop
    In Household Incomes

    DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
    February 23, 2006 2:10 p.m.

    WASHINGTON -- Average U.S. household incomes fell in the 2001-04 period after adjusting for inflation, and growth in household wealth slowed sharply from the previous three years, according to Federal Reserve data released Thursday.

    The Fed's most recent Survey of Consumer Finances shows real average household income shrank in the latest three-year period covered after growing by more than 10% in both the 1998-2001 and 1995-98 periods.

    DIG DEEPER

    Read the complete text of the Federal Reserve's report on changes in family finances from 2001 to 2004.

    Average household net worth still rose 6.3% on an inflation-adjusted basis, "however, the measured gains in wealth in the 2001-04 period pale in comparison with the much larger increase of the preceding three years," according to a summary of the Fed survey results.

    In the 1998-2001 period, net worth surged 28.7%, and in the three years before that it grew 25.6%, the survey data show.

    Household debt as a percentage of assets increased to 15.0% in 2004 from 12.1% three years earlier, with residential real estate's share of total debt holding steady at about three-fourths. "Even with interest rates lower in 2004 than in 2001, the (survey) data show a moderate increase in measures of debt burden," the Fed said.

    The Fed also shows some signs of increased wealth inequality. The data show median wealth dropped for families with the bottom 40% of incomes, and rose for higher-income families. But on an average basis, net worth either held steady or increased for all income groups.

    With interest rates generally lower and stock markets trending down in the latest three-year period, the overall share of financial assets in household portfolios declined. Families that held stocks directly or through managed funds fell to about 49% in 2004 from 52% three years earlier.

    FINANCIAL SNAPSHOT

    Median net worth of U.S. households, in 2004 dollars
    1995 $70,800 1998 $83,100 2001 $91,700 2004 $93,100 Fraction of families with stock, including retirement accounts and value of median portfolio in 2004 dollars
    1995 0.4% $18,000 1998 48.9% $29,000 2001 51.9% $36,700 2004 48.6% $24,300 Source: Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances

    An increase in nonfinancial assets, primarily real estate, helped to balance the decline. Nonfinancial assets grew to 64.3% of total assets in 2004 from 58.0% three years earlier. Homeownership was up 1.4 percentage points to 69.1% in the latest three-year period, while home values rose dramatically in many areas, the survey shows.

    Separately, initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 278,000 in the week ending Feb. 18, the Labor Department said Thursday. The four-week moving average of initial jobless claims fell last week, down by 1,500 to 281,750 from 283,250. New claims for the week ending Feb. 11 increased by 20,000 to 298,000, revised higher from a previously reported 297,000. (Full report)

    The Labor Department said the number of workers drawing unemployment benefits for more than a week increased in the week ended Feb. 11, the latest week for which such data are available. These continuing jobless claims climbed by 41,000 to 2,495,000. The jobless rate for workers with unemployment insurance was 1.9%, unchanged from the previous week.

    Also Thursday, the Conference Board said its help-wanted advertising index slipped to 37 in January from a revised reading of 38 the prior month. A year ago, the index stood at 42, the private research group said. During the past three months, help-wanted advertising increased in five of the nine U.S. regions, with the 5.8% gain in the Middle Atlantic region the largest.

    "Economic growth may be picking up in the first quarter, but the labor market indicators aren't showing much improvement through January," said Conference Board economist Ken Goldstein. "The economy only generated about 195,000 new jobs in January."

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    Again, this discussion has been going on in financial circles for a couple of years now, and hinges on the true relevance of 'official' gov't statistics, the definition of 'real' income, the definition of the 'official' CPI etc. to prove the case. However, anyone who is paying attention to 'anecdotal evidence' as well as 'official figures' will see that US households are spending more than they earn ... a clear symptom that their 'real' earnings are not increasing as fast as their costs of living to maintain the same lifestyle.

    The whole 'wealth' discussion hinges on smoke and mirrors too, since if too many people actually try to extract some of their supposed 'wealth' by selling their homes or stock shares, the market price of those homes and stock shares for everyone else drops like a stone.

    There is also a good deal of 'distortion' in trying to quantify income rise, since jobs are constantly being outsourced/abolished and new jobs being created to take their place, with vast differences in both the 'cash' and 'non-cash' components (bennies, options) of those jobs. About the only sorts of jobs which are more or less exempt from 'distortion' are union and public service jobs, which typically have some sort of tenure, which have published across the board pay raises, and which have benefit packages/costs which are relatively stable (until the company goes bankrupt anyhow).

    Does anybody have a plan on how to deal with this looming problem?
    Well, I have a personal plan ... convert as many of my assets as possible into other currencies before the US gov't turns the printing press speed up to hyperdrive in order to provide people with enough dollars to pay their debts/bills. Put another way, the US gov't really has two choices when people's incomes are no longer sufficient to pay taxes plus costs of living plus debts - they can let a few million people go bankrupt, and force businesses holding these debts to take a write-off, and flood the markets with repossessed houses / cars / stock shares (i.e. deflation), or they can print up so much new money that everybody will wind up getting pay raises sufficient to pay their debts and the economy will keep plodding ahead (i.e. inflation).

    Deflation is very good for the very rich (bargain shopping), bad for the middle class, and bad for the poor. Inflation is potentially good for the very rich (commodity investments), bad for the middle class, and good for the poor. Take a guess which one the Fed will opt for (think in terms of registered voters) !

    In regard to the price of energy, despite all of the high-tech hoopla IMHO there are really only two practical solutions to keep energy costs under control in the medium term. The first is to start building nuclear power plants, build Alaskan/Canadian pipelines, and start drilling for oil and gas in every bit of US territory where it's likely to be found (including the ANWR and offshore on both coasts). The second is to send a US warship with every oil tanker if you catch my drift. Next month's new moon should be a VERY interesting time (strategically the best time for mounting invasions).

    Again the 'tin foil hat' crowd would argue that the US gov't won't do these things, that the price of gas / heating oil / electricity will double or triple from present levels, and that the vast majority of Americans will be forced into a realization that they simply aren't productive enough by world economic standards to be able to afford a house, a car, decent food, heating/air conditioning, college for their children etc. This will in turn precipitate a new 'social program' crisis much like the 1930's, with more than 1/2 of the country being dependent on gov't subsidies in order to survive. This will also precipitate a law and order crisis, as cold/hungry/desparate people begin to start 'taking' from their neighbors who are better off than they are.

    The 'tin foil hat' crowd holds that, in the end, America will wind up with a tiny minority of very rich and powerful 'haves', and a vast majority of 'have nots' whose standard of living will fall to levels of global parity (i.e. about the same as current illegal aliens) and whose future standard of living rests primarily with the generosity of gov't subsidies. The rapidly rising costs of commuting and law enforcement problems will 'kill' suburban life as we know it, and the American middle class along with it.
    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-23-2006 at 03:42 PM.

  3. #3
    God/dess montythegeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    The Fed Survey of Consumer finances is not a very reliable indicator of much on anything. Go to the link Niceguy posted and then go to the appendix in the back and real about the survey. They interview about 4500 families, and 40% or so do not complete the survey. It takes real brilliance to get the result that stock equity did not rise--the frigging stock market went down in nominal terms!! Comparisons of small samples like this over time, when they are not the same folks in both periods is about as reliable as gauging your speed by rolling down the car window and sticking your hand out and seeing how cold it feels. This does not mean that some aspects of comparison may not be true, the differences, however, are not definitely measured,
    and conclusions are in doubt.

    PS, the original Dow author does not even know the difference between a median and an average. The author seems to imply that it disasterous that the 30%/year stock market gains of 1997-2001 did not continue.

    Nice guy, you are a niceguy, but all the things you are worrying about are pure specualtion. Nigeria has been in near civil war (or actual) for 35 years. Chavez has hated our guts since before he got elected, being a Fidel-clone. If he cut off the US oil, his country would be broke in 4 months and the poor people he bribes with his programs would have nothing.

  4. #4
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    744
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    Thanks. Beware the unanticipated events as they are not programmed into the investment models. Nigeria was more stable in the past with even the rebels on board that the oil pipelines should not be disrupted. Present situation is this strange group that stagtes its purpose is to shut them down. "Fidel Wanna be" Chavez was contained into his box until the US government made an unsucessful effort in 2002 to depose him. As removing one from power had better suceed, this was "not good" as Fidel Chavex has a long memmory.
    Now he has two alternative big markets India and China. You didn't mention Iran.
    These events would be the "perfect storm of oil." If Wall Street is not aware of this, or at least developing a contingency model, then they have sucessfully locked all of the analyst types away and the floor brokers are running everything. Having super salesmen total deal guys, run everything is a prescription for disaster. I agree that time will tell. I had this same feeling when watching Katrina... a mega disaster in slow motion with no plan to deal with it.

  5. #5
    God/dess montythegeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    NG, if you want a perfect storm, why did you not throw in another real storm (much higher probability) event--another round of hurricanes aimed at the Mississippi River delta disrupting oil supplies, or better yet one that knocks down Mexico offshore then heads for NOLA after crimping Venezuela and shuttering the Caribean refineries.

    All these events are possible, have much higher probabilites, and would together do more temporary damage.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    744
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    Forgot that one, given all the other geopolitical events affecting oil, like todays nutso group attacking a Saudi oil refinery. Actually, another severe hurricane this year hitting the US gulf is I think unlikely. However Iran, Mexico declining supply, Hugo Chavez, Nigeria oil rebels, high demand, and organized groups attacking oil infa structure. Maybe you don't need all of them just three or four of them to cause disruption? Got to get me a pair of those rose colored glasses on the street in New York to go along with my tin foil hat.

  7. #7
    God/dess whirlerz's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    27,134
    Thanks
    55,898
    Thanked 26,028 Times in 13,271 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    My Mood
    Aggressive

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    Well, I'm not a "big brain" here, but I've thought lately it seems very much like a Depression.


    MANY MEN WANTED TO LAY ME DOWN, BUT FEW WANTED TO LIFT ME UP

    -Eartha Kitt

  8. #8
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    744
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    Yes, a disguised depression. In 1929 there was the dramatic stock market crash with the federal reserve tightening money and making things worse. 1930 still bad and getting worse. 1931 still bad and getting worse. US army under General Mc Arthur crushes bonsus marchers who were causring riot in Wahsington. Shanty town "Hooverville" ("Bush town")
    destroyed by army. 1932 Roosevelt elected. Banking collapse averted. 1933 severe
    deflation on prices, wages and food. 1934

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    Yes, a disguised depression.
    Not wanting to get too far into the political side of economics, but in regard to a 'disguised depression', one big difference between say 2001 and 1931 is the existance of social benefits programs which essentially prevented the starvation, homelessness, and outright desparation which led to 'Hoovervilles'. Another big difference between 2001 and 1931 is the existance of a large number of 'public sector' jobs which were not affected by the economic downturn. Both of these were actually instituted by FDR - although today's version bears little resemblance to the initial 1930's programs. Today's version basically depends on the US gov't printing/borrowing money, and using that newly created money to pay for social benefits to the unemployed as well as paychecks for 'public sector' employees (i.e. teachers, bus drivers, gov't workers, military) and gov't funded employees in the defense industry, colleges, research labs etc. Thus where Hoover originally planned to let the 'bursting of the bubble' run its course through the US economy via a few years of painful readjustment, the FDR approach of using (borrowed/freshly printed) gov't money arguably relieved an immediate symptom at the cost of making the real disease much worse.

    The 'tin foil hat' crowd would argue that the ONLY reason that FDR's approach actually resulted in America being prosperous again was the advent of World War 2, the death of several hundred thousand US men who would otherwise have still have been unemployed, the military destruction of the production capacity of all of America's major industrial world competitors' manufacturing facilities leaving American industries as basically the only source of manufactured goods for the entire post-WW2 world, and the post-WW2 Bretton Woods agreement which basically designated the US dollar as the world's reserve currency in which all world commodities would be priced and by which all other countries currencies would be measured. These facts essentially allowed the US economy to 'coast' from the 40's to the 70's.

    However, FDR's principles did arguably make the original disease worse ... by removing incentive for 'poor' people to aggressively seek work, by creating a steadily rising tax burden which reduced incentive for 'middle class' people to aggressively seek bigger and better opportunities, by creating a huge expansion of 'public sector' jobs financed by tax money which have continued to grow and grow, and by creating a steadily rising tax and gov't regulation burden on US industries. Thus the famous promise of 'a chicken in every pot' conveniently left out the fact that the gov't was going to provide disincentives for the 'middle class' and US industries to actually raise more chickens, but that the gov't was instead going to take away an existing chicken from a 'middle class' worker and give it to a 'poor' person who isn't working instead.

    Back to the 'disguised depression', arguably the major reasons that the 'disguise' hasn't fallen off is the fact that both the gov't and the 'middle class' have been able to continue to use 'cheap' borrowed money to support expenditure levels / lifestyle that current cash flow simply cannot support. While the gov't can arguably print/borrow unlimited amounts of money forever, 'middle class' people are borrowing against the value of their houses or stock shares and creating real debts which must be paid back sooner or later. When the 'easy credit' machine stops turning (and it's already squeaking pretty loudly), forcing the widespread liquidation of assets such as houses and stock shares in satisfaction of existing debts, IMHO this will be the point where October 1929 similarities will really start to apply.
    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-25-2006 at 06:17 AM.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member TarynJolie's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    572
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    Quote Originally Posted by Niceguy
    1931 still bad and getting worse. US army under General Mc Arthur crushes bonsus marchers who were causring riot in Wahsington. Shanty town "Hooverville" ("Bush town") destroyed by army. 1932 Roosevelt elected. Banking collapse averted. 1933 severe deflation on prices, wages and food. 1934
    History is often a great predictor of future events. With that in mind, I predict that the economy will continue to struggle and worsen until after the 2008 election when there will be a power shift from the far right to slightly left of center. Until then hold on to your hats folks ( your shirts too ) because it is going to be a bumpy ride.

  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    I predict that the economy will continue to struggle and worsen until after the 2008 election when there will be a power shift from the far right to slightly left of center.
    Actually, Taryn, I'm in complete agreement with you about a power shift to the left ... all you have to do is follow the money. As the US economy gets worse for most of us, the 'very rich' will as always be able to make money on other people's misfortune and use loopholes to preserve their own wealth. Also, the 'very poor' will be complaining very vocally as their social benefit checks buy less and less. Thus as 'leftist' politicians will make promises to improve the plight of the poor, as has been traditionally done in the past, they will very likely be able to again assemble a coalition of the 'very rich' and the 'very poor' to carry the 2008 election. This will effectively spell the end of the 'middle class' in America.

  12. #12
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    I suspect it will go further to the right actually.

    Already there are people complaining about the illegal aliens and visa holders screwing up their prospects (I am one of the complainers.)

    There are people complaining about how China is sucking the US dry - it is the complete reversal of US/USSR in the 1980's. In the 21st century, the US has the financial problems. It is so amazing so many people can't see the reversal of fortunes here.

    People like the feeling of "security" and so we take our shoes off at airports, etc. and suffer through bag searches in major cities and plan stasi like surveillance systems and increased financial search warrants (or lack of them but looking through your finances anyhow.)

    In 2008 New Orleans will STILL be a wasteland. That is my prediction. I think it is an example of the government that simply can't function anymore. Everyone is amazed by court decisions, by open borders, by huge borrowing, by jobs going over seas, by katrina incompetence, but average people saddled with quarter million dollar and better debts.

    The democrats, if they want to fix things - they have to accelerate the change and I don't think they are willing to face up to it - hell they still live in the 60's and 70's. Their best plans are "We are not Bush" even NOW after spending ten years of loosing elections.

    I think it is going more to the right myself. The aging are always conservative and they have a HUGE voting block. (Those damn hippies are gonna screw Gen X over AGAIN.)

    I think the big change is going to occur when the Gen X'ers come into power. Unfortunately I think there is another 20 years of this sort of thinking to continue on.

  13. #13
    Veteran Member TarynJolie's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    572
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    Just to be clear on my earlier post.

    What I was predicting is that the middle class situation in the US will not improve until after 2008.

    At that time, I am seeing a shift to just left of center followed by a steady improvement for the middle class and the economy in general.

    Overall, I think we will see an economic repeat of the Clinton years , which were arguably pretty darn good for vast numbers of Americans as well as the national budget.

    Ofcourse only time will tell if my predictions are correct or incorrect. I am not a real fortune teller , I just play one on tv, LOL !

    Quote Originally Posted by Deogol

    I think the big change is going to occur when the Gen X'ers come into power. Unfortunately I think there is another 20 years of this sort of thinking to continue on.
    Interesting point to consider . Do you really think it will take another 20 years though ? Gosh, I hope not because that is an awful long time to wait
    Last edited by TarynJolie; 02-25-2006 at 11:44 AM.

  14. #14
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    Since when is this government "far right"? It's just as far to the left as the Clinton administration; it's just different people who are receiving the benefits and handouts. This government is anything but conservative.

    The middle class is definitely disappearing. Here in Los Angeles, it's already gone. Either you've got millions to spend on hookers and coke, or (like me) you have to dig out change from under the sofa to buy Top Ramen. What's especially frustrating is the fact that it's the poor people who are working and working; the rich do very little.

  15. #15
    God/dess Bridgette's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Gettin the fuck outta Dodge!
    Posts
    14,241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    It's always been the way Yek. Rich keep making more money off the backs of the poor. I don't see things getting any better in this country for a while either. Certainly not while Osama bin Bush is in office. And certainly not while our major voting block is, as Deogol says, a bunch of old hippies

    Quote Originally Posted by pheno View Post
    When you lead a nontraditional life don't try to measure it with traditional milestones.

  16. #16
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    Since when is this government "far right"? It's just as far to the left as the Clinton administration; it's just different people who are receiving the benefits and handouts. This government is anything but conservative.
    Very well said.

    There is nothing conservative about an administration that surpasses the LBJ administration in both real dollars spent and in the rate of growth in government, nor is there anything conservative about an administration whose policy for growth is entirely predicated upon debt acquisition.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: US Family Income declines 2001-2004

    What I was predicting is that the middle class situation in the US will not improve until after 2008.

    At that time, I am seeing a shift to just left of center followed by a steady improvement for the middle class and the economy in general.
    Trying to stick to economic issues, I fail to see how a 'move to the left' will benefit the 'middle class' in any way whatsoever. Traditionally, 'left leaning' administrations increase benefits to the 'poor' and increase income taxes to pay for them ... income taxes paid primarily by the 'middle class' as opposed to the 'very rich' who take their money in the form of dividends and capital gains instead of earned income to avoid high tax rates themselves. Traditionally, 'left leaning' administrations increase regulations on both individuals and businesses, which typically results in higher property taxes and lower business earnings. Traditionally, 'left leaning' administrations cut back on defense spending, which at the moment is the one stronghold of 'middle class' white collar employment in America.

    From a historical standpoint, during the few periods where a 'left leaning' administration and congress have actually been able to enact their policies over the last 40 years or so (i.e. Carter and Clinton), they have managed to set forces in motion which created a huge financial mess ... however the aftermath of that mess was typically blamed on their 'right leaning' successors (i.e. Reagan and GWB).

    Of course we now have new variables to consider i.e. the economic fallout of a replay of 9/11, blowing up oil pipelines, setting mideast oil fields on fire etc. I fail to see how an 'appeasement' and BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) policy from a future 'left leaning' administration, and the $5 per gallon gasoline prices that will follow as a consequence (as well as vastly increased prices for heating oil, natural gas and electricity), are going to improve the economic state of suburban 'middle class' Americans - who, unlike most social welfare recipients, are actually forced to pay for these things in order to commute to work and heat/cool their suburban homes.
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-25-2006 at 03:04 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. 2001 Odyssey
    By keira0304 in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-12-2008, 01:01 PM
  2. Remembering September 11, 2001
    By Vyanka in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-12-2006, 12:01 AM
  3. 2001 nude, tampa
    By Jacqueline Y in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-25-2005, 06:16 PM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-03-2005, 09:57 PM
  5. How to politely leave a customer who declines a dance.
    By EvilPixyDust in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 04:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •