Economic Mobility in the U.S. Varies Geographically
July 22, 2013 7:42 AM   Subscribe

A team of economists from Harvard and UC Berkeley studying the effects of tax expenditures on economic mobility has released data showing that economic mobility in the U.S. varies dramatically between different geographic areas. The authors' website includes a summary of their findings. According the NY Times article on the study, which has a nifty map and tools to play with the data, the authors only found relatively small correlations between tax credits for the poor and higher taxes on the rich and economic mobility. However, the following four factors did correlate with greater economic mobility in a region: the size and dispersion of the middle class, more two-parent households, better schools, and more civic engagement (measured through membership in religious and community groups). Matthew Yglesias comments on the study at Slate.

According to the NY Times:

Climbing the income ladder occurs less often in the Southeast and industrial Midwest, the data shows, with the odds notably low in Atlanta, Charlotte, Memphis, Raleigh, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Columbus. By contrast, some of the highest rates occur in the Northeast, Great Plains and West, including in New York, Boston, Salt Lake City, Pittsburgh, Seattle and large swaths of California and Minnesota.
posted by Area Man (51 comments total) 16 users marked this as a favorite

 
I'm guessing the weirdly high numbers in North Dakota (from the NYT map) are because of the recent oil boom in that state.
posted by logicpunk at 7:54 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


Hey, I was just tweeting about that; the graphics in the times piece are cool.

Interesting that the upper Midwest has such high levels of mobility --- the article implies that geographic segregation+bad transport mix explain a lot of the regional differences, but is public transport really that much more awesome in Minnesota than the Northeast? Or less overall stratification there?
posted by Diablevert at 7:55 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Better public schools and more economic diversity seems to be the answer.
posted by snickerdoodle at 8:03 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Better public schools and more economic diversity seems to be the answer.

Sounds like you are assuming a different question than the feudal lords are.
posted by DU at 8:04 AM on July 22, 2013 [8 favorites]


From the executive summary:
For instance, areas with high rates of segregation may also have other
differences that could be the root cause driving the differences in children’s outcomes.
hmmmm... what could that "other difference" be? I don't see how you could do this study and control for both race and the effect race has on mobility i.e. white people don't move into black regions... which is a slightly different question than segregation (the ability to move to where jobs/opportunities are is surely going to strongly correlate with upward mobility.)

Krugman compares Pittsburgh and Detroit as regions with similar industrial histories but very different current conditions without ever mentioning that Detroit became a "black" city and Pittsburgh didn't (for lots of reasons including historical US internal emigration patterns.)

and of course Yglesias manages to somehow not notice where the big fat red patch on that US map is and includes:
There is a current of thinking on the left in the United States that holds that people care too much about school quality, and I think we can add this study to the (long) pile of reasons for while the conventional wisdom is correct about this and actually school quality is quite important.
People have no idea how good their local schools are, what people are saying when they choose a "good" school is that the school district isn't full of poor people, black people, and other denizens of the american underclass. which is just to say that we all know that no one is climbing any ladders.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:05 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


How the heck were those lines on the map gerrymandered? They cross state lines and encompass multiple cities and geographic areas at seeming random.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:06 AM on July 22, 2013


I'm guessing the weirdly high numbers in North Dakota (from the NYT map) are because of the recent oil boom in that state.

You betcha! When a town goes from 3,000 people to 30,000 in ten years somebody is making some money.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:09 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm guessing the weirdly high numbers in North Dakota (from the NYT map) are because of the recent oil boom in that state.

Yeah, my unscientific examination of correlation of the NYT map with this map of oil and gas exploration makes me wish I could see a rigorous examination of the subject.
posted by Quonab at 8:10 AM on July 22, 2013


Regions with larger black populations had lower upward-mobility rates. But the researchers’ analysis suggested that this was not primarily because of their race. Both white and black residents of Atlanta have low upward mobility, for instance.
oh jesus. it's not race, it's racism. racism is a system for both white and black people.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:11 AM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


People have no idea how good their local schools are, what people are saying when they choose a "good" school are saying is that the school district isn't full of poor people, black people, and other denizens of the american underclass. which is just to say that we all know that no one is climbing any ladders.

That's not been my experience. In this state students have to take a test at certain grades, the results of which are public, allowing one to easily compare districts. Newspapers cover this.

The big real estate sites, which are used by about 90 percent of homebuyers, include extensive information on school districts and rankings for the whole country.
posted by Diablevert at 8:12 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


How the heck were those lines on the map gerrymandered?

They are "Commuting Zones." Similar to MSAs but covering rural areas as well.
posted by yarrow at 8:13 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


This seems very myopic to the point of not being worth arguing over.

It's important to remember that studies like these plot whatever data is available, not whatever is most relevant. E.g., you can't plot racism.

In this state students have to take a test at certain grades, the results of which are public, allowing one to daily easily compare districts.

You're comparing which schools have the "best" students, not necessarily which schools are the "best".
posted by kiltedtaco at 8:14 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Pretty heartbreaking that in that sea of blue in the Dakotas are several red blocks, corresponding to Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Cheyenne River Indian Reservations...you read all these stories about how desperate they are for workers in the oil biz and right next door you have some of the worst unemployment in the country.
posted by Esteemed Offendi at 8:20 AM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


E.g., you can't plot racism.

yet somehow the heart of dixie is a big red blob of class rigidity? they did plot racism and everyone is trying to avoid talking about it.

in that sea of blue in the Dakotas are several red blocks, corresponding to Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Cheyenne River Indian Reservations

maybe it's the schools?
posted by ennui.bz at 8:21 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


They looked at the childrens' household income in 2010-2011 when they were about 30 years old. Was the ND oil boom going full blast at that point?
posted by Area Man at 8:23 AM on July 22, 2013


They are "Commuting Zones." Similar to MSAs but covering rural areas as well.

They really think combining the data of Anacostia in DC; Leonardtown, Maryland; and McLean, VA gives them a better sense of the diversity found in the DC area or that Combining Stanley, ND with Sidney, MT rather than Williston or Minot gives them a unified picture of the area?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:25 AM on July 22, 2013


You're comparing which schools have the "best" students, not necessarily which schools are the "best".

Ennui's assertion was that people have no idea whether the schools their kids go to are any good, mine that this info is readily accessible and lots of people seek it out. I agree that there may be such a thing as a good school whose students score poorly on standardised tests because of other circumstances. Given the opportunity, I'd still bet that the vast majority of parents would want their kid to go to a school where the vast majority of kids pass such tests.

Either way, I don't think the info in the study says anything definitively about schools, anyway. It's a little silly to use it to climb back into the hobbyhorse of school quality when it didn't examine that.
posted by Diablevert at 8:27 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


yet somehow the heart of dixie is a big red blob of class rigidity?

Poverty on it's own is not racism. The red areas of the south have infrastructure and development akin to some third world countires
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:29 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


yet somehow the heart of dixie is a big red blob of class rigidity? they did plot racism and everyone is trying to avoid talking about it.

I think racism a part of it, sure. If you have a white family making $16K a year and a black family ditto, and the white kids have a 5% chance of becoming rich and the black kid has a 4% chance, then I think you can draw an inference about racism. But if you have a white family from Georgia making $16K a year and a white family from Minnesota ditto and the Georgia kid has a 5% chance of becoming rich while the Minnesota kid has a 10% chance, I don't think you can make any inferences about racism, unless you're talking second order stuff, like more ethnically homogeneous areas experience less class segregation or are more willing to fund poverty alleviation measures. But I don't think the preliminary work that's shown here would allow one to make such conclusions. They're great questions to ask but I don't think this study answers them. What this study says is that poor people in the South, regardless of race, are more likely to stay poor.
posted by Diablevert at 8:36 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


Given the opportunity, I'd still bet that the vast majority of parents would want their kid to go to a school where the vast majority of kids pass such tests.

You're assuming too much correlation between school quality and test passage. If middle-class kids tend to pass and poor kids tend to fail, then my desire to send my child to a school where kids tend to pass is going to be a de facto desire to send my child to a mostly middle-class school.

And if class and race are highly correlated, then that ends up being a force for segregation.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:38 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Poverty on it's own is not racism. The red areas of the south have infrastructure and development akin to some third world countires

It's a big study and, who knows, maybe it was actually constructed well despite all of the signs. But the idea is to actually be able provide some answers to these questions. The problem is that "academic economists" have huge ideological blindspots. These kinds of studies were starting to be done by *sociology* departments in the 70's and really require serious interdisciplinary cooperation in order to actual measure something. But, the federal funding for those sociology programs was shut down because of ideology. Sociology was, and is, seen as a hot bed of various left-isms, unlike objective economics.

The economic development of "The South" is intimately intertwined with racism as a social system for white people and black people. The same thing is true about what happened to Detroit and the emgiration of black people to places like Detroit in the first place is, of course, connected to "the South." The data is interesting, but the problem is to draw conclusions from the data which I maintain probably can't be done unless the study gets into serious questions of sociology, questions an academic economist would laugh at.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:40 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Re geography, I haven't read the full paper yet so I'm not sure how much they explain their thinking in using CZs. Given that their goal in the research was to evaluate the effect of state and local tax policies on income mobility, they were actually making things harder for themselves by using a geographic designation that crosses state and municipality lines, so presumably there was a rationale having to do with the regionality of employment markets.

This is an impressive dataset - they got individual tax return data from 1996-2000 and from 2010-11 and matched children in households from the first set to their adult returns in the second set. It's easy to take "data" for granted in these times, but it can't have been easy to get that data out of the IRS.
posted by yarrow at 8:43 AM on July 22, 2013


anotherpanacea said it right. To restate it another way, inferring that student performance is a measure of the "quality" of the school rather than any number of systematic effects of the student population served by the school encourages people to create de facto segregation, as those with the extra mobility provided by their marginally higher affluence will seek out schools (and thus neighborhoods) filled with students of similar affluence. Sure each individual parent may be justified in using whatever data are available to provide the best situation for their children, but when thinking about education and social mobility on a society-scale it's super important to remember the aggregate negative effects of inferences of causation like "school quality matters" + "student performance=school performance".
posted by kiltedtaco at 8:53 AM on July 22, 2013


You're comparing which schools have the "best" students, not necessarily which schools are the "best".

But that wouldn't, then, correlate with social mobility. If the "good" schools were only "good" because rich white kids go to those schools, the fact that the kids who go to those schools end up in the top 20% would not show up as higher mobility. They would be in the top 20% already. Neither you nor ennui.bz are actually thinking about what the study found, here. If there is a correlation between some measure of "school quality" and the movement of kids from the bottom fifth to the top fifth of the economic ladder then whatever that measure of "quality" is measuring it's not simply a proxy for the kids' parents' current position on the economic scale.
posted by yoink at 9:13 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


I don't disagree with anything you said, ktaco. I just don't think this study does anything to bolster or detract from such arguments. All they really looked at was how much money the kid's family made and where they lived, and how much money the kid made as an adult and where they lived. We don't have any info on what caused the 5 or 10 percent who did end up in the top quintile to do so. Surely education is a part of that, but we don't know how big a part. Not from this, anyway.
posted by Diablevert at 9:14 AM on July 22, 2013


Surely education is a part of that, but we don't know how big a part. Not from this, anyway.

Indeed not, and the study's authors are at pains to note that their results are all correlational, and merely point to areas that merit further study. But this is a very suggestive finding, nonetheless, and not one that can be hand-waved away by the objection that the schools that rich kids go to are always going to rate well on certain measures of "quality."
posted by yoink at 9:36 AM on July 22, 2013


Did anyone see what the authors were using to measure school quality? I went to check their website, but it seems to be down at the moment.
posted by Area Man at 9:44 AM on July 22, 2013


All they really looked at was how much money the kid's family made and where they lived, and how much money the kid made as an adult and where they lived. We don't have any info on what caused the 5 or 10 percent who did end up in the top quintile to do so.

I'm not sure why you say this. The authors claim that they found significant correlations between proxies of school quality and income mobility, mediated by economic integration. So if a child lived in a place with good schools that are attended by both rich and poor students, then the authors say that that child would be more likely to experience economic mobility. So it seems we DO have some info on what caused them to end up in the top quintile: it's schools, social capital, income equality, and integration. The caveat that there may be some unmeasured "third thing" causing both of the correlated items is obviously necessary, but you have to offer a hypothesis, you can't just assume that the correlation is spurious.

If there is a correlation between some measure of "school quality" and the movement of kids from the bottom fifth to the top fifth of the economic ladder then whatever that measure of "quality" is measuring it's not simply a proxy for the kids' parents' current position on the economic scale.

Of course, we don't know *how* schools might contribute to and restrict mobility: one possibility is that when rich attend the same schools as poor, the rich use their power to guarantee that those schools are good and the poor receive the educational benefits. But we can't assume that.

Another possibility is simply that when rich and poor rub elbows in school, there's more possibility that the poor will have access to the connections they need to become rich later. That second possibility wouldn't explicitly involve school quality as a cause, except insofar as the rich would allow their children to attend the same schools as the poor only so long as they think quality is high, and in doing so they'd actually create a school whose metrics looked good.

(The proxies for school quality mentioned were "test scores and dropout rates.")
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:50 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


see table 5 on pg 18 for correlations of 25 social/ economic factors of US regions w/ economic mobility

top 5 positive correlations:
social capital index
income growth rate
something called "score" -possibly related to schools?
religiosity
student expenditures

top 5 negative correlations:
share single moms
divorce rate
Share Single Moms (kids of married)
highschool dropout rate
share black
posted by markvalli at 9:57 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


The blue areas in western North Dakota and eastern Montana are exactly where the oil boom is happening. Ten years ago those areas would have been the same yellow and white as the rest of Montana. (I lived in that area during the 1960's and 1980's oil booms and in between.)

The other anomoly in Montana covers Fergus and Cascade counties. I'm not sure why those two areas would have higher mobility. Fergus is all ranchers and one semi-isolated town (Lewistown) and Cascade has an Air Force base.
posted by ITravelMontana at 10:22 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


religiosity

That one's interesting, given how dire the whole Bible Belt is. I guess if they didn't have that going for them they'd be totally sunk.
posted by yoink at 10:29 AM on July 22, 2013


I'm not sure why those two areas would have higher mobility. Fergus is all ranchers and one semi-isolated town (Lewistown) and Cascade has an Air Force base.

If the populations are really low, then just a few individuals could skew the result.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 10:29 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


The correlation is more than just the west. There is a band from eastern Kentucky up through West Virginia and into Pennsylvania that correlates with increased oil and gas exploration.
posted by Quonab at 10:32 AM on July 22, 2013


one possibility is that when rich attend the same schools as poor, the rich use their power to guarantee that those schools are good and the poor receive the educational benefits.

I think that almost certainly plays a part, given that one of the important social factors is relatively mixed neighborhoods. That is, if you live in neighborhoods entirely comprised of people from your socioeconomic position and you attend schools drawn entirely from those neighborhoods presumably your chances of social mobility are correspondingly diminished.

Then again, breaking out "school quality" from "socioeconomic diversity" would presumably be a reasonably straightforward statistical analysis (keeping whatever measures of "school quality" the original study is using for comparison's sake).
posted by yoink at 10:33 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


So one thing that might make it difficult to untangle the effects of sprawl from the effects of institutional racism is that sprawl itself is a technology designed by well-off white people to ensure that their kids wouldn't have to mix with black kids. A knock-on benefit of this technology, for the people who devised it and who so quickly embraced it, is that it helps keep adults from the underclasses from physically getting to the jobs that pay a wage that can support a socially meaningful life, thus reducing competition for those jobs.

Basically what I'm saying is that sprawl is both causal and caused. Certainly, it ensures that power structures remains fixed, and that white people, ceteris paribus, stay closer to the top — but this isn't surprising, since that's what sprawl's built to do.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:50 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


it ensures that power structures remains fixed, and that white people, ceteris paribus, stay closer to the top

Isn't a study like this designed precisely to find out what happens when ceteris really are paribus? And, in this case, it seems that these systems are not, in fact, differentially impacting white and black people. That is, while there are obviously enormously effective social forces keeping black families poorer than white families, there are not similar systems in place encouraging social mobility among white families and discouraging it among black families. That strikes me as a very interesting finding. I would have expected social mobility among poor whites to be higher than social mobility among poor blacks, wouldn't you? That it is not (or, at least, not markedly) tells us that we need to rethink some of our assumptions.
posted by yoink at 11:00 AM on July 22, 2013


That it is not (or, at least, not markedly) tells us that we need to rethink some of our assumptions.

I'm not sure that it does. On the one hand, the trap traps everyone caught in it; on the other hand, though, the trap was quite deliberately set in a place where it would catch more black people than white people.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:01 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Basically what I'm saying is that sprawl is both causal and caused. Certainly, it ensures that power structures remains fixed, and that white people, ceteris paribus, stay closer to the top — but this isn't surprising, since that's what sprawl's built to do.

That's assuming there aren't minority suburbs, which there actually are and that whites are moving to suburbs as opposed to away from them, which they are.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:19 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


is public transport really that much more awesome in Minnesota than the Northeast?

No it isn't, but government services are exceptionally well funded and managed. State universities are free for many in state students, public housing is relatively good, and the state version of Medicaid is easy to get and covers a large percentage of the population. It probably helps that the state has a pretty small minority population so the opportunity for discrimination is smaller.
posted by miyabo at 11:40 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


the opportunity for discrimination is smaller

Huh? There are fewer people of minority ethnicity per capita, wouldn't that mean there's even more opportunity for them to be discriminated against? I think I know where you were going with that, but it's not the percentage of minority population that determines the amount of racism they face.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:45 AM on July 22, 2013


That's assuming there aren't minority suburbs, which there actually are and that whites are moving to suburbs as opposed to away from them, which they are.

Well and so but anyway, feel free to google around for what white people in the Detroit metro area say about Southfield (for example).

The trick of recruiting geographical separation/stratification to do the work of social separation/stratification evolves over time, certainly. But the initial engine of sprawl was that act of using geographical structures to rigidify social structures, and geography remains a proxy for race-and-class today.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:57 AM on July 22, 2013


I mean asking whether sprawl or racism limits social mobility in America is like asking whether segregated restaurants or racism limited social mobility in 1950s America.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:59 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


The trick of recruiting geographical separation/stratification to do the work of social separation/stratification evolves over time, certainly.

As the process reveres it will definitely be interesting to watch what happens to those who were left behind in the initial move out of the cities. Those that manage to not sell out or get pushed out will be in an interesting position to take advantage of the benifits gentrification and development.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:20 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Social mobility among poor white people is abysmal. Only if you're incredibly lucky and relatively smart can you get out of the trap.

(I moved from the bottom quintile as a kid to top quintile now. It has been a strange career so far.)
posted by sonic meat machine at 2:53 PM on July 22, 2013


"The economic development of "The South" is intimately intertwined with racism as a social system for white people and black people. The same thing is true about what happened to Detroit and the emgiration of black people to places like Detroit in the first place is, of course, connected to "the South." The data is interesting, but the problem is to draw conclusions from the data which I maintain probably can't be done unless the study gets into serious questions of sociology, questions an academic economist would laugh at."

You're missing a more direct explanation — that when social services are seen as "for" black people in America, then they tend to be cut by the right wing. In the South, there's both a lot of black people and a very right-wing government, ergo cuts to social services that would improve lives of everyone, especially black people.

Detroit is a whole 'nother thing (or, similar, related, but best served by its own discussion).
posted by klangklangston at 4:32 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


I would have expected social mobility among poor whites to be higher than social mobility among poor blacks, wouldn't you? That it is not (or, at least, not markedly) tells us that we need to rethink some of our assumptions.

Err... It looks to me that income mobility is higher for poor whites than poor blacks. One of the biggest predictors of low income mobility is the black population share, along with black isolation (I.e. being black and not having white neighbors.) I don't see anything in this study that belies the basic white supremacist structure of the US.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:04 PM on July 22, 2013


David Brooks will be all over this.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:03 PM on July 22, 2013


The 10th Regiment of Foot: "They are "Commuting Zones." Similar to MSAs but covering rural areas as well.

They really think combining the data of Anacostia in DC; Leonardtown, Maryland; and McLean, VA gives them a better sense of the diversity found in the DC area or that Combining Stanley, ND with Sidney, MT rather than Williston or Minot gives them a unified picture of the area?
"

Well the idea is that workers and populations are grouped by central labor markets, areas that you can drive / metro to, in order to get a job, I think the intuition for that is fair enough, but obviously the more you zoom out or into a certain area the more obscure the truth becomes. Area statistics is/are like pointillism.

Anyways, sources:

"Commuting Zones (CZs) provide a local labor market geography that covers the entire land area of the United States. CZs are clusters of U.S. counties that are characterized by strong within-cluster and weak between-cluster commuting ties. "

Also used in this paper.
posted by stratastar at 1:29 AM on July 23, 2013


I just did a quick float through the map, looking for regions in which less than 50% of people born into the lowest quintile rose out of it.

I didn't check everywhere, but it appears these are pretty rare, mostly in northern Alaska, northeastern Arizona, or western South Dakota. I don't know my US geography that well, but I think many of these are reservations or other areas with large native populations.

It seems these are the areas to be most concerned about- places where less than half of the children born into poverty rise out at all. It'd be neat to see a map of those regions.
posted by nat at 5:23 AM on July 23, 2013


I would have expected social mobility among poor whites to be higher than social mobility among poor blacks, wouldn't you?

the short form version of "racism" as a social system in the South has been both carrot and stick to control poor white farmers/sharecroppers. as carrot: "well, at least I'm not a negro" and as stick: "someone who will work for less money than a white man."

so, no, I would expect white social mobility to be low in the South.

But now that we have this study, you have even Krugman talking about how sprawl is keeping social mobility low in Atlanta and it's just inane.

You're missing a more direct explanation — that when social services are seen as "for" black people in America, then they tend to be cut by the right wing. In the South, there's both a lot of black people and a very right-wing government, ergo cuts to social services that would improve lives of everyone, especially black people.

That's sounds like a marginally better research study: Is social mobility correlated with access to government social services? than "Will the EITC lead to greater social mobility?" which seems to be on the level of "Does music make my plants grow better?" sociologically. But my point is that you can't hope to get useful correlations that are in any way meaningful without getting into analyzing society, something academic economics is woefully short on tools to do and frankly, isn't interested in doing.

Everything about the way a city like Atlanta (or Detroit) functions models the way the society of people who live there function: our cities are a reflection of who we are. Racism is only one factor but you simply can't talk about the economics of major urban areas in the US without talking about race as a social system. It makes your science "wrong", and renders the politics of your research transparent.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:47 AM on July 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


"That's sounds like a marginally better research study: Is social mobility correlated with access to government social services?"

To amend my previous comment, it's broader than that — investments in public infrastructure are also correlated with race, e.g. less money for public transit when it's going to be "those people" making the most use of it. It's the Lee Atwater plan, and Southern voters love it.
posted by klangklangston at 8:27 AM on July 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


« Older Why the Social Media Generation Never Really Break...  |  We Tracked Down Our Biggest Tr... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments