Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People are being booted out of their jobs at 50
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 31 of 81 (206252)
05-08-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Rrhain
05-08-2005 5:38 PM


Rrhain, the examples of athletes and chess masters and Nobel prize winners were provided as evidence of decline with age. They weren't intended as examples of the level of performance necessary to retain your job. The greatest accomplishments are reserved for the young, because the inevitable decline that accompanies age makes performance at such high levels impossible. The same decline that keeps me from winning Wimbledon or Bobby Fisher from regaining the world championship or Nash from doing work that wins him another Nobel affects us all. The older we get, the less able we are to match the performance of younger people.
But what makes you think the 70-year-old can't do the job? The job doesn't require him to run a 6 minute mile, lift 300 pounds over his head, or solve four questions on the current Putnam exam.
You've not only missed the point, you're actually confusing two different points. If you go back to post 1 and read Lam's introductory post you'll see that this thread is about older workers being replaced with younger ones. It isn't that the 70 year old is expected to lift 300 pounds, it's that however much he's supposed to lift, someone younger can do it better and cheaper and all day long.
Read the last paragraph of my Message 7. It'll give you a better idea of the point I was actually making. When I was just out of school I wondered why most of the other engineers were under 40. Now I'm on the other side of fence and I can see that the older you get the more likely you are to fall by the wayside. One day you're laid off and you find that no one's interested in hiring highly paid older workers when there are so many well-trained younger ones who will work for half as much (this is literally true) and you take a job selling cars, like the former Digital Equipment Corporation lifer who sold me my current car back in the days when, like you, I thought I'd never slow down, never see kids as competition, never worry about being unemployable and unable to support my family.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 5:38 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2005 12:21 AM Percy has replied
 Message 57 by nator, posted 05-10-2005 8:14 AM Percy has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 32 of 81 (206254)
05-08-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rrhain
05-08-2005 5:55 PM


Rrhain writes:
No, not everyone. But a significant portion.
Then what do you suggest we do with the portion that do not or could not go on working in a competitive job market?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 5:55 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2005 12:29 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 33 of 81 (206257)
05-08-2005 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rrhain
05-08-2005 5:51 PM


Rrhain writes:
I know, but you seem to have the same misconception that Percy has that the modern job market requires you to be of the most rare caliber in order to succeed.
No, but it is a fact that the older you are the less chance you'll have at getting another job after getting booted out of your old one.
How many construction workers are there compared to service-sector workers? You keep leaping to the corner cases. Logical error of the excluded middle. Are you saying that someone who can't lift an 8x12 panel of sheetrock over his head and screw it in single-handed has absolutely no use in the job market?
No, I am not saying that. I am saying, however, that private organizations are more likely to hire fresh and young workers who can have the same skills but can work much longer for much lesser salary.
I occasionally apply for jobs at places and there are always older applicants there. The thing is the younger ones are the ones that get hired most of the time.
But we shouldn't let society starve just because you don't think they're useful anymore.
What on Earth are you talking about? If you go back and read all my posts, you will see that I never even implied that our elders have outlived their usefulness. What I have been saying, and apparently what you have been missing, is that there should be a happy medium somewhere where people are not hired strictly based on how cheap and how much they could work and not turn our country into one big social welfare organization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 5:51 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2005 12:44 AM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 05-09-2005 3:08 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 34 of 81 (206315)
05-09-2005 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
05-08-2005 9:21 PM


Percy responds to me:
quote:
Rrhain, the examples of athletes and chess masters and Nobel prize winners were provided as evidence of decline with age.
Yes, but you are dealing with a corner case. The difference between first and second place at such a high level is the smallest of increments.
Even though the 40-year-old chess master is unlikely to be able to compete on an extended basis with the latest prodigy, he's still going to beat the pants off the rest of us.
Martina Navratilova is pushing 50. Do you think the average Joe who plays tennis maybe every other week at best would be able to take her?
For someone who is four deviations above the norm to fall to three or even two simply isn't such a dramatic change. He's still much more talented than the rest of us and still highly productive.
This was a huge point when I was an undergrad. I was at the #1 school of science and enigneering in the world, surrounded by the best and the brightest. But here's the thing: Somebody needs to be at the bottom of the list. After a dozen years of school being at the top of every class, you are thrown in with people who had the exact same experience as you of being at the top. The pond suddenly got much smaller and filled with the biggest fish around.
Even if we take the least of these fish, however, they're still going to be much farther along than most everybody else.
quote:
The greatest accomplishments are reserved for the young, because the inevitable decline that accompanies age makes performance at such high levels impossible.
But the world doesn't run on the greatest accomplishments. And don't make the mistake of reversing the arrow. While the greatest accomplishments tend to show up from the hands of the young, the vast majority of the young will never achieve any great accomplishment.
quote:
If you go back to post 1 and read Lam's introductory post you'll see that this thread is about older workers being replaced with younger ones.
Indeed.
And you were the one who brought up grand masters and Olympic athletes. But the job market doesn't need every position filled by such a person. In fact, it is a bad thing if they are because the workers will be quite unsatisfied with their jobs and performance will decrease.
quote:
It isn't that the 70 year old is expected to lift 300 pounds, it's that however much he's supposed to lift, someone younger can do it better and cheaper and all day long.
Huh? That makes no sense. If the task simply requires you to tie your shoes, are you seriously saying that someone who's been tying his shoes for 40 years will be less competent at it than someone who's only been doing it for 10?
The majority of work in the industrialized world doesn't have nearly the requirements you seem to be indicating it does.
quote:
you take a job selling cars, like the former Digital Equipment Corporation lifer who sold me my current car back in the days when, like you, I thought I'd never slow down, never see kids as competition, never worry about being unemployable and unable to support my family.
(*chuckle*)
Just how old do you think I am?
Here's a hint: I remember Nixon's resignation.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 05-08-2005 9:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 12:33 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 05-09-2005 9:34 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 35 of 81 (206316)
05-09-2005 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by coffee_addict
05-08-2005 9:25 PM


Troy responds to me:
quote:
Then what do you suggest we do with the portion that do not or could not go on working in a competitive job market?
One thing is to get over the misconception that they could not go on working in a competitive job market. They can.
One solution can be applied across more than just this problem: Retraining. We have this problem with single-industry communities such as in the rust belt where the overwhelming majority of the economy is driven by a single company. When the company closes shop, the community literally dies. The problem is not that the workers are incapable of working in a competitive job market. It's that the market abandoned them. They need retraining. One possibility, for example, is to stop outsourcing the jobs overseas and instead to send them to these depressed communities.
It isn't a panacea, but it's something.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by coffee_addict, posted 05-08-2005 9:25 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 12:35 AM Rrhain has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 36 of 81 (206317)
05-09-2005 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Rrhain
05-09-2005 12:21 AM


Rrhain writes:
Huh? That makes no sense. If the task simply requires you to tie your shoes, are you seriously saying that someone who's been tying his shoes for 40 years will be less competent at it than someone who's only been doing it for 10?
The majority of work in the industrialized world doesn't have nearly the requirements you seem to be indicating it does.
This is why Percy said
It isn't that the 70 year old is expected to lift 300 pounds, it's that however much he's supposed to lift, someone younger can do it better and cheaper and all day long.
You keep missing the point, Rrhain.
But the world doesn't run on the greatest accomplishments. And don't make the mistake of reversing the arrow. While the greatest accomplishments tend to show up from the hands of the young, the vast majority of the young will never achieve any great accomplishment.
Probably not, but nevertheless they can work longer hours for less pay. You really think the people in charge care who can make a bigger splash? All they care about is who can work longer hours for lesser pay. In fact, I would argue that in today's economy 10 not-so-well-built but workable and cheap computers are prefered over 1 well-built and expensive computer. This is why everything is built in China nowadays.
Don't believe me? Just open up your dell desktop and look at the individual parts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2005 12:21 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2005 12:52 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 37 of 81 (206318)
05-09-2005 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rrhain
05-09-2005 12:29 AM


I agree completely. You need to tell that to the current administration instead of us.
Added by edit.
Actually, I don't agree completely.
I don't know about you, but I know with absolute certainty that it is almost impossible for my dad to relearn something new. If he suddenly looses his ability to play the piano through some accident, he will not be able to learn how to play the trombone or the trumpet. His other option is to go and apply for a job where anybody/everybody could do. In this case, he will be in direct competition with 100 young men who are willing to work twice as long for a fraction of the salary.
This message has been edited by Troy, 05-09-2005 12:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2005 12:29 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2005 12:45 AM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 48 by StormWolfx2x, posted 05-09-2005 4:19 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 38 of 81 (206320)
05-09-2005 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by coffee_addict
05-08-2005 9:34 PM


Troy responds to me:
quote:
No, but it is a fact that the older you are the less chance you'll have at getting another job after getting booted out of your old one.
Indeed, but not because you are not as productive. It's because you're older. Your salary history will haunt you. One job transitio of mine had me going from direct hire to a contractor. When the contract ended and I was looking for new work, the exorbitant amount of money I had been making as a contractor was suddenly a huge impediment. Nobody wanted me because they didn't think they could afford me, that I would be upset at taking a significant salary cut, etc., etc.
quote:
I am saying, however, that private organizations are more likely to hire fresh and young workers who can have the same skills but can work much longer for much lesser salary.
Except for that last part, you're wrong. They don't have the same skills because they don't have the experience. They aren't capable of working longer hours. The only thing they have over the more experienced workers is the fact that they can be hired for less money.
quote:
I occasionally apply for jobs at places and there are always older applicants there. The thing is the younger ones are the ones that get hired most of the time.
But not because they're better workers. They're hired because they're cheaper.
quote:
quote:
But we shouldn't let society starve just because you don't think they're useful anymore.
What on Earth are you talking about?
That government and society has a responsibility to make sure that the citizenry isn't starving. That's why Social Security was instituted.
quote:
If you go back and read all my posts, you will see that I never even implied that our elders have outlived their usefulness.
Did you or did you not say:
There is a difference between being able to live longer and having the energy to compete with the younger generation.
That seems to be an indication that they have outlived their usefulness.
Did you or did you not say:
Again, we shouldn't penalize the rest of society just because a few people could go on forever.
"Penalize"? Just what sort of "penalty" are you talking about? What is the problem about "going on forever"? They're still productive members of society. Isn't that a good thing?
quote:
there should be a happy medium somewhere where people are not hired strictly based on how cheap and how much they could work and not turn our country into one big social welfare organization.
One of the most important things to realize in order to accomplish that, however, is that the people you think are part of the "big social welfare organization" aren't.
There is a significant problem of "mandatory retirement." These workers are not ready to go.
Perhaps it would help if you would define what you mean by "one big social welfare organization."

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by coffee_addict, posted 05-08-2005 9:34 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 12:57 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 39 of 81 (206321)
05-09-2005 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by coffee_addict
05-09-2005 12:35 AM


Troy responds to me:
quote:
I don't know about you, but I know with absolute certainty that it is almost impossible for my dad to relearn something new.
Irrelevant. Your father is not the typical case. How many times do I have to say it before you remember it?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 12:35 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 12:58 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 40 of 81 (206322)
05-09-2005 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by coffee_addict
05-09-2005 12:33 AM


Troy responds to me:
quote:
You keep missing the point, Rrhain.
Incorrect. I get your point. It's just that your point is wrong. The older worker can go all day long, just as the younger worker can.
The only difference is that the older worker, because of the experience and work history, will cost more. It isn't that the work won't get done. It isn't that it won't be of as high quality. It isn't that it won't be done on schedule.
It's money.
quote:
Probably not, but nevertheless they can work longer hours for less pay.
No, they can't. They can work for less pay, but not for longer hours.
You have severely underestimated the capabilities of the older workforce and that is precisely the problem the older workforce is facing: People think that they're not up to it despite all indications that they are.
quote:
In fact, I would argue that in today's economy 10 not-so-well-built but workable and cheap computers are prefered over 1 well-built and expensive computer.
Irrelevant. Workers are not computers. The analogy fails.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 12:33 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 1:03 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 41 of 81 (206325)
05-09-2005 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rrhain
05-09-2005 12:44 AM


Rrhain writes:
Indeed, but not because you are not as productive. It's because you're older. Your salary history will haunt you. One job transitio of mine had me going from direct hire to a contractor. When the contract ended and I was looking for new work, the exorbitant amount of money I had been making as a contractor was suddenly a huge impediment. Nobody wanted me because they didn't think they could afford me, that I would be upset at taking a significant salary cut, etc., etc.
Ok, how many times do I have to repeat myself? It doesn't matter if they are useless or not. It's hard for them to find another job, period.
Except for that last part, you're wrong. They don't have the same skills because they don't have the experience. They aren't capable of working longer hours. The only thing they have over the more experienced workers is the fact that they can be hired for less money.
You kidding?
But not because they're better workers. They're hired because they're cheaper.
And your point is? since when did I say they are better workers? If you reread my posts, my emphasis is and always have been that younger workers are cheaper to hire.
That government and society has a responsibility to make sure that the citizenry isn't starving. That's why Social Security was instituted.
According to my philosophy professor a long time ago, there has got to be some kind of communication breakdown somewhere. I don't have a clue where you got the idea that I disagreed with you on this one.
That seems to be an indication that they have outlived their usefulness.
I believe I said, and for the last time...
quote:
There is a difference between being able to live longer and having the energy to compete with the younger generation.
I don't know how this got translated to outliving one's usefulness.
"Penalize"? Just what sort of "penalty" are you talking about? What is the problem about "going on forever"? They're still productive members of society. Isn't that a good thing?
My point has always been that at least some members of society don't have the strength to go on working 40 hours a week. You seem to be saying something like "since some members of society can keep working until they die of old age, it should be the case that every member of society should be expected to do the same."
There is a significant problem of "mandatory retirement." These workers are not ready to go.
And I absolutely do not remember ever saying we should have mandatory retirement. I am, however, opposed to keep moving the retirement age back and back and back and finally to "until death do you stop working."
If you want to keep working when you are 80, I say go for it.
Perhaps it would help if you would define what you mean by "one big social welfare organization."
Has it occured to you that it wasn't meant to be taken literally?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2005 12:44 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2005 2:58 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 42 of 81 (206326)
05-09-2005 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Rrhain
05-09-2005 12:45 AM


Rrhain writes:
Irrelevant. Your father is not the typical case. How many times do I have to say it before you remember it?
It IS relevant. I just showed you at least one case where a person is worn out at a relatively early age. This should at least be put into consideration when people want to move back the retirement age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2005 12:45 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2005 3:01 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 43 of 81 (206327)
05-09-2005 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Rrhain
05-09-2005 12:52 AM


Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. I get your point. It's just that your point is wrong. The older worker can go all day long, just as the younger worker can.
I agree to disagree.
No, they can't. They can work for less pay, but not for longer hours.
i agree to disagree.
You have severely underestimated the capabilities of the older workforce and that is precisely the problem the older workforce is facing: People think that they're not up to it despite all indications that they are.
Like I said, if you are up to working the way you did when you were 30 at 60 or 70, I say go for it. Should this apply to everyone? I think not.
Irrelevant. Workers are not computers. The analogy fails.
Um... read that statement by me again. I was referring to the builders of the computers. That's why I added the line "everything is made in china..."
We were talking about experience, and I was pointing out that 10 items made by inexperienced workers are preferred over 1 item made by experienced workers.
I think the main problem here is miscommunication. You seem to think I believe in a lot of things I don't believe in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2005 12:52 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 44 of 81 (206344)
05-09-2005 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by coffee_addict
05-09-2005 12:57 AM


Troy responds to me:
quote:
It doesn't matter if they are useless or not. It's hard for them to find another job, period.
Then why did you bring it up? You're the one who was saying they don't have the energy, can't put in the hours, etc., etc. Well, they have. They can. They do.
So if it isn't that they aren't as productive, why did you bring it up?
quote:
quote:
Except for that last part, you're wrong. They don't have the same skills because they don't have the experience. They aren't capable of working longer hours. The only thing they have over the more experienced workers is the fact that they can be hired for less money.
You kidding?
No.
quote:
quote:
But not because they're better workers. They're hired because they're cheaper.
And your point is? since when did I say they are better workers?
Did you or did you not just say, "You kidding?" in response to a claim that younger workers don't have the same skills and experience as older workers? Is that or is that not an indication that you think younger workers are better workers?
Perhaps you could define what you mean by "better"?
quote:
quote:
There is a difference between being able to live longer and having the energy to compete with the younger generation.
I don't know how this got translated to outliving one's usefulness.
"Having the energy to compete."
What do you think that means?
quote:
My point has always been that at least some members of society don't have the strength to go on working 40 hours a week.
Indeed. That's why SSI also covers disability.
They are not as numerous as you are making out.
quote:
You seem to be saying something like "since some members of society can keep working until they die of old age, it should be the case that every member of society should be expected to do the same."
You've got the implication backwards. What I am saying is that even though some members of society are not able to keep working as they reach seniority, it should not be assumed that all or even most should be expected to be the same.
Given that our economy has shifted significantly from being primarily labor-based, we find that the older workforce is just as productive as the younger workforce and that they can work well into seniority. The fact that there are those that can't should not be held against those that can.
quote:
I am, however, opposed to keep moving the retirement age back and back and back and finally to "until death do you stop working."
Even when the retirement age is well within the productive years of a worker? When SSI was instituted, the age of benefits was 65...a few years more than the average life expectancy. In a labor-based economy where you can easily have worked your body to death by the time you made it to 65.
We don't live in such a world anymore. We need to reconsider some things. One of those is that older workers are less productive than younger ones. Since they are going to need to plan and prepare for living a life that extends far beyond what has commonly been called "retirement age," they do not deserve to be considered "not having the energy" of a younger worker. The reason that they are going to be living so far beyond what has commonly been called "retirement age" is that they do have the energy.
quote:
quote:
Perhaps it would help if you would define what you mean by "one big social welfare organization."
Has it occured to you that it wasn't meant to be taken literally?
Did you or did you not say:
What I have been saying, and apparently what you have been missing, is that there should be a happy medium somewhere where people are not hired strictly based on how cheap and how much they could work and not turn our country into one big social welfare organization.
I took the introductory phrase "What I have been saying" to mean that what was to follow was your point.
I wasn't supposed to take your point seriously?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 12:57 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 10:50 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 45 of 81 (206346)
05-09-2005 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by coffee_addict
05-09-2005 12:58 AM


Troy responds to me:
quote:
I just showed you at least one case where a person is worn out at a relatively early age.
Are you seriously claiming that your father is representative of the typical person over the age of seniority?
How do you rectify that with your immediate followup to the example of your father with someone who seems to be quite the industrial person?
Part of the problem older people have in trying to find work is that people think they "don't have the energy" of younger workers. That is nothing more than a euphemism for "not as good a worker."
Are you trying to say that your father is the typical case?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 12:58 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by coffee_addict, posted 05-09-2005 10:56 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024