The Slow Pace of Social Mobility

~ Laura

Facinating research on social mobility, or the lack of it.

When you look across centuries, and at social status broadly measured — not just income and wealth, but also occupation, education and longevity — social mobility is much slower than many of us believe, or want to believe. This is true in Sweden, a social welfare state; England, where industrial capitalism was born; the United States, one of the most heterogeneous societies in history; and India, a fairly new democracy hobbled by the legacy of caste. Capitalism has not led to pervasive, rapid mobility. Nor have democratization, mass public education, the decline of nepotism, redistributive taxation, the emancipation of women, or even, as in China, socialist revolution.

To a striking extent, your overall life chances can be predicted not just from your parents’ status but also from your great-great-great-grandparents’. The recent study suggests that 10 percent of variation in income can be predicted based on your parents’ earnings. In contrast, my colleagues and I estimate that 50 to 60 percent of variation in overall status is determined by your lineage. The fortunes of high-status families inexorably fall, and those of low-status families rise, toward the average — what social scientists call “regression to the mean” — but the process can take 10 to 15 generations (300 to 450 years), much longer than most social scientists have estimated in the past.

Ultimately, the authors believe that IQ is the primary determinant of social success. Schools, privileges and public policy don’t do much to alter the slow, but inevitable move towards the mean for the wealthy, nor do they give the poorer a larger and permanent boost.

Published by Laura

43 thoughts on “The Slow Pace of Social Mobility”

  1. Good to see the article by the author of the book.

    But, I was puzzled by this:

    “The elite ones were held by descendants of Ivy League alumni who graduated by 1850, exceptionally wealthy people with rare surnames in 1923-24 (when public inspection of income-tax payments was legal) and Ashkenazi Jews. The low-status names were associated with black Americans whose ancestors most likely arrived as slaves, and the descendants of French colonists in North America before 1763.”

    Why are “Ashkenazi Jews” classed as elites in the sample? And, how much does that group (which does not in my mind correspond to any elite status in the early 20th century — unlike extremely wealthy people and Ivy League alumni) contribute to the statements. The NYT paragraph alludes only to the Ashkenazi & Blacks. Maybe there’s an error in translation, but I had understood the premise to be that status of ancestors predicted the status of descendants. Without some good reasoning for why Jews would have elite status in the 20’s, when they were fairly recent immigrants to the US, I’m not understanding why this conclusion isn’t mere circular reasoning (based on defining the elite groups now).

    Like

  2. “I’m not understanding why this conclusion isn’t mere circular reasoning.”

    Right, is there any indication that elites have higher IQs? In the US, he pulled surnames from lists of doctors and lawyers which might but doesn’t necessarily act as a proxy for high IQ. The whole concept of IQ seems so fraught at this point so I’m automatically suspect of anything that offers it as a pat answer.

    Also this, “These studies, along with studies of correlations across various types of siblings (identical twins, fraternal twins, half siblings) suggest that genetics is the main carrier of social status” is ridiculous. There are some correlational studies that suggest that genetics is the main carrier? I’m going to need more than that. Whenever a study asserts something is genetic there is often a completely obvious environmental possibility that was rejected out of hand. Not that I believe genetics plays no role, but it’s too heavily leaned on as an answer without exploring how the environment or the interaction between genetics and environment is working to shape the outcome.

    Like

  3. Oh, right — I thought it was 0.776598734268&5319864…, an irrational number, like PI, but closer to tau.

    I had hopes for the book, ’cause the idea of using last names of Norman conquerors to analyze long term social mobility was a great idea. But the article suggests a book in which someone searched for preformed conclusions.

    Like

    1. I lost a post on this earlier.

      In brief, I don’t think you can rely too much on those Norman surnames. I haven’t read the whole book, but in Tess of the D’Urbervilles, poor Tess Durbeyfield is quite likely the real descendant of the D’Urberville family. The name D’Urberville has, however, been pretty much bought out by a nouveau riche family who bought a title and appropriated the D’Urberville surname. Tess goes to seek aid from the family she believes to be her long lost relatives and tragedy ensues.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tess_of_the_d'Urbervilles

      Hence, the acquisition of a hotsy-totsy Norman surname may reflect energetic social climbing, rather than actual descent.

      Like

      1. AmyP – Jesse Timmendequas’ con man dad got the name off a grave stone, because their old name had gotten to be an albatross round his neck. So if there were stellar Timmendequases in 1753, well, Megan’s Law is where it all went.

        Like

  4. It’s very odd to see registration as a doctor or lawyer as a sign of high social status. I also do not understand why attending certain universities is taken as a sign of high social status.

    For the Ivy League alumni, it’s interesting that doctors often beget doctors. I have the impression that Ivy League grads in the past frequently became doctors, especially if we’re talking of the graduates of 1850. So, is it social power, or a family calling to medicine which persists. http://hms.harvard.edu/news/harvard-medicine/harvard-medicine/handed-down/family (For all I know, lawyers might do the same.)

    I’m descended from 32,768 ancestors 15 generations ago. You are too. (Cumulatively, 65,535 ancestors at that point in time.) Those 32K ancestors had many other descendents, of course. (16,000 original couples x Ngenerations x (number of children per generation.) If I happen to share an uncommon name with one of those 32K ancestors, and we’re both college grads, that proves something? And if the male line of descent only had one son 15 times in a row, but the sister 15 generations back had more fertile descendents, who won? The sole scion of the brother, or the thousands of descendents of the sister?

    If we were able to name all an American doctor’s ancestors, 15 generations back, it’s quite likely he or she will number more Smiths and Browns in the ancestral tally than Cabots.

    And what about all the descendents who did not descend through the male line? Over time, there should be far more of them, as each birth has a roughly 50% chance of being female. The “reversion to the mean” over generations could well be the cumulative chance for each line of descent producing all female children in one generation–which wipes the name out.

    Like

    1. I’m descended from 32,768 ancestors 15 generations ago.

      If your ancestors weren’t good enough for their own cousins, how could they be good enough for the Cabots.

      Like

      2. I don’t think my ancestors stayed in one place long enough to marry their cousins. Those ancestors we know of seem to be a mobile lot, and not nobility. Farmers, lawyers and merchants.

        However, do note that European nobles have practiced cousin-marriage for a really long time. The results of long-term inbreeding are not thought to be healthy.

        In imperial Germany, a noble marrying a commoner would lose the status of nobility, so-called Adelsverlust.

        In France, the record of noble families contradicts the authors’ theory:

        In 1789, there were 17,000 to 25,000 noble families, and estimates of numbers of individuals range from 80,000 (many contemporary estimates) to 350,000. Chaussinand-Nogaret finds 110,000 to 120,000 nobles, for 1/4 of which nobility had been acquired during the 18th c.(25,000 families, of which 6,500 ennobled, about 1,000 by letters and the rest by office). I would tend to believe him, rather than the 300,000 figure. The population of France was 28 millions, so that’s 0.4% of the population. Nowadays, there are about 3500 families of noble origin, of which about 3000 from before 1789. Not that the Revolution itself is to blame for the losses: only 1200 nobles were tried and executed during the Terror, and maybe 30,000 to 40,000 emigrated, almost all of whom returned eventually.http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/noblesse.htm

        Like

      3. My point was merely that nobody has 32,768 ancestors. Everybody is descended from paired cousins if you go out of 15 generations.

        Like

    1. So, from BJ’s link:

      At this point I would like to highlight one of the seminal articles on this subject, called Ancestors at the Norman Conquest, published in 1980 by Kenneth W Wachter, a Berkeley statistician and demographer. Wachter assumed that ‘England’ was a closed society, with basically no international immigration. He uses the example of a hypothetical, strictly English, person born in 1947 (let’s please not open a debate on what ‘English’ means) and assumes an intergenerational length of thirty years. He then makes some assumptions about the average degree of cousin marriage based on an analysis of his own family tree – such cousin marriage being in fact quite rare. (…)

      For example, even 15 generations ago in 1527 the mean calculated number of distinct ancestors is still 31,438, not much less than the theoretical maximum of 32,768, and only about 1.5% of Wachter’s estimated English population of 2.2 million at the time. To put this in another way, fully 96% of this person’s ancestors in the 15th generation are distinct people and only 4% are duplicates or ‘non-distinct’. This seems to accord quite well with my earlier observations regarding my own ancestry. But then something peculiar starts to happen.

      So, no, 15 generations ago, it’s possible to have many, many distinct ancestors. Between the 15th and 20th generation, thought, the family trees have to collapse, in a closed society.

      However, many Americans have ancestors from different countries. If your ancestors hail from England, France, and India, you don’t hit the mandatory cousin point at the 20th generation.

      The author Laura linked to asserted 10 to 15 generations, though. At that point, it need not be cousins at all–although if your ancestors were landed gentry, they were more likely to have restricted their marriages to other landed gentry.

      Like

      1. A much more careful read would be necessary, but my as the article states is that the precision of when the collapse occurs is quite variable, including variable among individuals. I don’t think the models prediction can be takenas an absolute estimate of when the generational collapse must occur, though it does suggest that 32K antecedents are not impossible.

        My guess would be that the immigrant background of the us would have only a minor effect on the overall calculation, because the frequency of cousin marriages increases as you go up the generational pyramid, while immigrant marriages are likely to have occurred in recent generations when the effects of cousin marriage on the pyramid are minimal. I.e my children have two non closed gene pools, but the liklihood of collapse in each is reflective of closed societies.

        Like

      2. And, there might be founder effects causing smaller ancestral pools in the US, because of the various migration populations (one example detectable among Mormons — though polygamy also played a role in ancestral collapse there, but there are other examples).

        Like

      3. Even if the pool of ancestors 15 generations back is 1/32 of its potential, that’s still 1,000 ancestors at that point. If one of the ancestors is singularly successful (or even 50), why should we decide that small sample is the definitive beginning point, over the other 950 ancestors? The same family tree could just as well be portrayed as a rise to success, if the 21st century person is really successful, and the other 950s are Smiths and Bakers.

        Such an analysis would logically need to include _all_ ancestors and _all_ descendants, rather than the tiny number who happen to have the same unusual last name at two points of time.

        Like

      4. Cranberry said:

        “Such an analysis would logically need to include _all_ ancestors and _all_ descendants, rather than the tiny number who happen to have the same unusual last name at two points of time.”

        Exactly.

        You definitely see that in my family. You can see various lines trending up, down and sideways. My great-great-grandfather (who had an unusual name) was a former Union cavalryman and built a rather spectacular house by the standards of my hometown (it’s now a rather spiffy bed and breakfast), but there’s a definite downward trend among his descendants (largely thanks to the familial alcoholism). Or maybe it’s more of a U-shape (with an upward trend as my ancestors stopped being alcoholics). But then you look at the Swedish line that married into that family (with a surname as common as dirt), and their trend is definitely upward (at least in my line).

        Or take my husband’s side of the family back in Poland. The Jewish side of the family is very visibly upwardly mobile, while the Polish noble side of the family is more consistently prosperous across a 100+ year span, even despite dealing with such misadventures as losing a factory during the Russian Revolution, WWII, the communist takeover of Poland, and emigration to North America.

        Like

  6. “..In modern meritocratic societies, success still depends on individual effort. Our findings suggest, however, that the compulsion to strive, the talent to prosper and the ability to overcome failure are strongly inherited. We can’t know for certain what the mechanism of that inheritance is, though we know that genetics plays a surprisingly strong role. Alternative explanations that are in vogue — cultural traits, family economic resources, social networks — don’t hold up to scrutiny..”

    Laura, you are characterizing the Clark group as seeing IQ as the big inherited factor. I see IQ only in their ‘talent to prosper’, and compulsion to strive and ability to overcome failure as being more in the line of the grit and prudence type virtues. Which they suggest are themselves inherited. Now, if you are smart AND determined AND don’t squander, you are unbeatable! But smart can be only one leg of the stool, and if it’s the only leg of your stool, you can topple over. Now, if (and I think Clark is right, probably) compulsion to strive and ability to overcome failure are heavily heritable then someone who is dull and thriftless and not energetic is well and truly fucked. We have IQ tests, so everybody thinks of that as the big heritability motor, but as we develop data on heritability of other traits (the PQ would be the Prudence Quotient? the SFQ would be the slacker-factor-quotient?) that may shift. This ties in with the psychologists who have been torturing little kids with the one marshmallow you can get immediately versus the two marshmallows you can get if you let it sit on the plate for ten minutes.

    I’ve been reading Team of Rivals – I recommend! – and am struck by the extent to which Doris Kearns Goodwin shows the four rivals for the Reep nomination in 1860 as having had compulsion to strive, the talent to prosper and the ability to overcome failure. Lincoln came from a situation of great poverty and sort of a wastrel dad, but Kearns Goodwin points out his remarkable mother. All four of these guys headed West from the coast to the opening frontier and made themselves prosperous there. More recently, both Bill Clinton and Clarence Thomas look to have made themselves pretty much out of unpromising beginnings, and they both look to have grit prudence and brains – though some of the scrapes they’ve gotten themselves into (the can of Coke! the cigar!) suggest maybe not as much prudence as might have been optimal.

    Like

  7. The problem I have with Clark’s work (and for that matter with some of the comments here) is that the genetic theorizing seems to run well in advance of the actual evidence. What I would like to see someone do–it would actually require a whole research team–is take a large random sample (say 1000 people) from a locality with good records and relatively little immigration (say England or Sweden), and trace each person’s ancestry comprehensively for 300 years (which would be possible, though it would be a lot of work). Then it might be possible to have some phenomic data, so to speak, on which theorizing could be based.

    Such comprehensive tracing has been done for isolated individuals, like Princess Diana. Her 10th generation ancestors are of much higher status on average than mine or yours, though they are by no means all of high status. But she is an outlier. It would be interesting to know if the 10th generation ancestors of the average upper middle class Englishman or Swede show a significantly higher average status than the ancestors of the average working class person. (It would be interesting to answer that question for Americans too, but high levels of immigration make the project much more difficult.)

    Like

  8. The research is fascinating. That article about paired cousins was great. But, I’m a bit of skeptic, too.

    Among my first cousins, incomes range from $500,000 to welfare. Educations range from PhDs to no high school degree. If we’re products of our ancestors, shouldn’t we be more similar?

    Also, which ancestors would explain our own MC/UMC status? My grandmother’s grandmother was a lady in waiting to the Queen of England oops, Italy. My father’s grandfather was a saloon fighter and an Iowa farmer with a third grade education.

    I’m not convinced that IQ is a determinant of success. The saloon fighting great-grandfather was a mathematical genius, despite his lack of formal education. He laid cobblestone streets in Chicago and calculated the number of bricks per street in his head. I guess the formula for curves was very complicated. But he was very rough around the edges and was a raging alcoholic, so no social mobility for him.

    Sudden deaths and accidents also helped keep smart people down. My grandmother on one side and my grandfather on the other both spent time in orphanages. My grandmother’s mother died when she was nine and her father had to put 5 of the younger kids in an orphanages for a while. My grandfather’s parents were insane and alcholics, so he was sent off for a while.

    Like

    1. I’ve only sort of skimmed the articles because 1. math and 2. I happen to have had a raging headache the past few days. But it feels like what the articles may be arguing is that it’s important to have a really strong middle class. If we gear towards the middle, then we reduce the risk of a cycle of poverty. Yes, people will hit bad times; case in point: my great-great grandmother, daughter of a lawyer in the mid-late 19th century, married a school teacher and had a very stable middle class life for several years. But her father died suddenly in 1880, her husband died suddenly in 1886, and her second husband died in 1893. She herself died of pneumonia in 1901, when my great grandfather was 22, and he and his 3 younger siblings had very little. But then thanks to the GI Bill and unions and such, our family is pretty much stable middle class now. There’s room for some success but no one is off the charts well-off. I do a lot of personal genealogy, but I can’t find anyone seriously wealthy. My great-grandfather’s third cousin was head of the World Bank, I guess, but most of his children still live near the small town where he grew up. Looking through my history, everyone was pretty much middle class farmers and teachers and restaurant workers/owners and factory workers and subway conductors and bricklayers.

      Like

    2. Laura said:

      “Among my first cousins, incomes range from $500,000 to welfare. Educations range from PhDs to no high school degree. If we’re products of our ancestors, shouldn’t we be more similar?”

      The way I think about heredity is that every time a kid appears, it’s like giving a twist to a kaleidoscope. The same basic ingredients are there, but each shake or twist rearranges them in some unique pattern.

      For instance, in my household, I have an excellent memory but much less impressive mathematical and spatial skills (although my arithmetic isn’t bad). On the other hand, my husband has a terrible memory for detail, but has very highly-developed higher level abstract mathematical skills. We have one child who seems to have both my excellent memory and my husband’s excellent mathematical skills. However, it would be equally possible for us to have a child who had my so-so math and spatial skills and my husbands terrible memory.

      Like

      1. Bear in mind that with each succeeding generation, there’s (hopefully) an admixture of outside genes, so that you and your first cousins only share 50% of your grandparents and you and your second cousins only share 25% of your grandparents, etc.

        My paternal grandmother’s family is very consistently high-achieving. It’s quite noticeable because there were eight siblings and they all grew up during the Great Depression in considerable hardship (although I believe the family was fairly prosperous pre-Depression) but practically all did very well in the post-war period (among the bunch, there’s a writer of school textbooks, a state college department chair and an owner of several radio stations). Then, among all of them, there’s one sister (who I’ve heard described as the smartest of all of the 8 siblings) who married kind of badly. (When I was a kid, I didn’t really notice, because my great-uncle’s sense of humor was roughly that of a 10-year-old, but as I grew up I eventually realized that no matter how big I got, his jokes were always the same and there were only about six of them, max.) Anyway, in that particular branch of my family, there are still highly competent people (one of the grandkids recently got a doctorate and a pretty good job), but at least 50% of the people descending from that couple are just really bad at life (a really bad marriage choice, divorce (two divorces out of two marriages, if I’m counting correctly), long term unemployment, living with mom and dad, impulsivity, etc). And you see the impulsivity and the issues with judgment even among the brighter and more successful ones.

        Like

  9. Clark has a paper on Sweden, which is quite good. It analyzes the relative name distribution (compared to the population) among lawyers, doctors, thesis writers, royal academy members (as well as income distribution).

    People with patronyms (i.e. ssons, like Andersson) are underpresented in law, medicine, thesis writers, and RA members compared to those with Noble surnames (as well as other . The paper is pretty thorough in uncovering that result. The analysis, includes, for example, addressing whether people are likely to have changed their names (more likely for patronyms, but actually forbidden by law for Noble surnames — in 1900 Sweden passed a law that forbade people from changing their name to the “noble” names). There’s some hand waving in an effort to maximize the thesis that intergenerational status changes are low, and lower than expected by intergenerational changes in other variables (like education) (and “low” is a relative term, there is a clear regression to the mean). But, I still think the result is interesting.

    The final conclusion of the paper, though, doesn’t say anything about IQ, but that “the forces that determine intergenerational mobility must be fundamental to the formation and functioning of families.” which is a much broader set of interactions.

    Like

    1. “People with patronyms (i.e. ssons, like Andersson) are underpresented in law, medicine, thesis writers, and RA members compared to those with Noble surnames (as well as other.”

      There are at least three different -son surnames among my immediate ancestors.

      Some family visited Sweden a few years back (partly out of genealogical interest), and one of the bits of lore that they came back with is that there is a special category of Swedish military surnames. (Presumably the Swedish military was heartily sick of keeping track of various Jan Jansens.)

      I don’t know how reputable this site is, but here’s a short account of the custom of military surnames:

      “At the end of the 17th century the Army and later the Navy started to give the soldiers special surnames. When a soldier was enrolled the Captain of the Company gave him a special “soldier name”. In each Company the soldiers had to have a unique last name.”

      http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/Naming%20practice_eng.htm

      Like

      1. The paper discusses some of the naming conventions in Sweden — including the changing of patronyms at adulthood. Also, they say many of the nobility were made nobles in the around the same period (when Sweden was occupying land in Estonia, Germany, Finland, etc.) and that it was common for newly made nobles to make up lofty sounding names (like goldstar, except in Swedish). In addition there were “latinized” names and names associated with German (like Berg), because some of the newly made lords were German military officers who were being rewarded. Interesting, and it deals with some the questions one might have about surnames (say, people taking on high status surnames — which he argues didn’t happen as much, ’cause of the law against taking the names of nobles).

        Like

      2. I wonder where my Swedish ancestors’ name came from. It’s Wennerholm, not a -son name. It goes back a ways, too. I have a 5th GGF first named it in 1768, but his father has a patronymic.

        Like

      3. Wendy said:

        “It’s Wennerholm, not a -son name. It goes back a ways, too. I have a 5th GGF first named it in 1768, but his father has a patronymic.”

        Moving on up!

        Like

      4. Amy, I can’t even figure out what Wennerholm means. Back then, they were tanners, btw. One of them moved to England and lived in Southwark, among all the other tanners in the tanner neighborhood, and married a tanner’s daughter. Then they moved back to Sweden. I don’t get it.

        Like

      9. Wendy said:

        “Back then, they were tanners, btw. One of them moved to England and lived in Southwark, among all the other tanners in the tanner neighborhood, and married a tanner’s daughter. Then they moved back to Sweden. I don’t get it.”

        I dimly recall from reading a Thomas Sowell book (maybe the one he wrote on immigration?) that even in the 19th century, there was actually quite a lot of bungeeing back and forth between the old country and the new country (which was not always the US). I think he mentioned Italians in particular as doing a lot of this. Because of the whole Ellis Island nostalgia thing, we tend to think of it as a one-way process, but that was not at all the case.

        In the particular case of Sweden and your ancestor, here’s my guess. Things were wretched back in Sweden (a huge portion of the population emigrated in the late 19th century), so he went to England to improve his fortunes (his marriage suggests that he did reasonably well). Once he had made enough to lead a decent life in Sweden, he went back.

        Wikipedia says that as of 1910, “one fifth of all Swedes had their home in America.” And that doesn’t even account for your ancestor.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Emigration_Commission_1907%E2%80%931913

        Like

  10. “The way I think about heredity is that every time a kid appears, it’s like giving a twist to a kaleidoscope.”

    I was just explaining genetic recombination to my 10yo the other day, actually ’cause we were discussing the concept of Most Common Recent Ancestor (which mathematical models suggest occurs as recently as 3000 years ago).

    Like

  11. I’ve always been a fan of the “son” names, and now I understand part of my ideological motivation — they really do mess up easy visible, labeling of heredity and nobility. It’d be interesting to see how those labels were preserved in countries with different naming conventions, say, in parts of India where last names were traditional not highly visible (and, for the most part, were cast names shared by large numbers of people — they do label cast) and in Korea (where many seem to share the same last names). Are there “nobility” names in China? I think there are, but that they may be the conventions regarding first names — one family I know from China named children in generations based on an ancestral poem — could be that knowledge of that poem was widespread enough that the name was identifiable.

    Like

    1. “Are there “nobility” names in China?”

      I don’t know the answer to that question, but I do know about goings on in Soviet Russia after the revolution and in Maoist China, and my understanding is that “bad” class origin was the sort of thing that families would try to energetically conceal (during the Culture Revolution, the Red Chinese were continually trying to ferret out class origins). Under communism, huge amounts of family photographs and letters were destroyed because they were just too incriminating and dangerous–an irreparable loss.

      Interestingly, there seem to be relatively few Chinese surnames:

      “The conception of China as consisting of “the old 100 families” (老百姓, Lǎobǎixìng) is an ancient and traditional one, the most famous tally being the Song-era Hundred Family Surnames. Even today, the number of surnames in China is a little over 4,000, while the year 2000 US census found the number of American surnames held by at least 100 people to be more than 150,000[2] and more than 6.2 million surnames altogether.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_Chinese_surnames.

      Like

  12. Wendy: I don’t know how much research you have done, so maybe I am saying things you already know. In the 19th century, Swedish town residents (i) discovered that patronymics don’t adequately distinguish families in a town with thousands of households, even though such names were fine for rural villages, and (ii) wished to distinguish themselves from their country cousins (as do we all). They adopted new names, commonly formed from nouns for natural objects. The names themselves don’t mean very much: “Hammarstrand,” the name of some of my ancestors, literally means “mountain-beach.” (The “strand” part has an English cognate.) In your case, “-holm” means “island”; “wenner” is much less common, but ancestry.com suggests that it comes from Lake Vanern.

    Some Swedes adopted geographical names, though this was much more common in Denmark. So it is possible that there is actually an island called “Wennerholm” or “Vanernholm” or somewhere in between, from which your ancestors hailed.

    Like

    1. Thanks! That actually would make sense as at about the same time they changed their name, several members of the family moved to the Lake Vanern area (from further South).

      I did find that vånner means “friends,” which I like to think means that they had an island of friends. 🙂

      Like

Comments are closed.