Wingham Rowan: A new kind of job market

Translator: Timothy Covell
Reviewer: Morton Bast This is about a hidden corner of the labor market. It’s the world of people who need to work ultra-flexibly, if they’re to work at all. So think, for instance, of someone who has a recurring but unpredictable medical condition, or somebody who’s caring for a dependent adult, or a parent with complex child care needs. Their availability for work can be such that it’s, “A few hours today. Maybe I can work tomorrow, but I don’t know if and when yet.” And it’s extraordinarily difficult for these people to find the work that they so often need very badly. Which is a tragedy because there are employers who can use pools of very flexible local people booked completely ad hoc around when that person wants to work. Imagine that you run a cafe. It’s mid-morning, the place is filling up. You’re going to have a busy lunchtime rush. If you could get two extra workers for 90 minutes to start in an hour’s time, you’d do it, but they’d have to be reliable, inducted in how your cafe works. They’d have to be available at very competitive rates. They’d have to be bookable in about the next minute. In reality, no recruitment agency wants to handle that sort of business, so you are going to muddle by, understaffed. And it’s not just caterers, it’s hoteliers, it’s retailers, it’s anyone who provides services to the public or businesses. There’s all sorts of organizations that can use these pools of very flexible people, possibly already once they’ve been inducted. At this level of the labor market, what you need is a marketplace for spare hours. They do exist. Here’s how they work. So in this example, a distribution company has said, we’ve got a rush order that we’ve got to get out of the warehouse tomorrow morning. Show us everyone who’s available. It’s found 31 workers. Everybody on this screen is genuinely available at those specific hours tomorrow. They’re all contactable in time for this booking. They’ve all defined the terms on which they will accept bookings. And this booking is within all the parameters for each individual. And they would all be legally compliant by doing this booking. Of course, they’re all trained to work in warehouses. You can select as many of them as you want. They’re from multiple agencies. It’s calculated the charge rate for each person for this specific booking. And it’s monitoring their reliability. The people on the top row are the provenly reliable ones. They’re likely to be more expensive. In an alternative view of this pool of local, very flexible people, here’s a market research company, and it’s inducted maybe 25 local people in how to do street interviewing. And they’ve got a new campaign. They want to run it next week. And they’re looking at how many of the people they’ve inducted are available each hour next week. And they’ll then decide when to do their street interviews. But is there more that could be done for this corner of the labor market? Because right now there are so many people who need whatever economic opportunity they can get. Let’s make it personal. Imagine that a young woman — base of the economic pyramid, very little prospect of getting a job — what economic activity could she theoretically engage in? Well, she might be willing to work odd hours in a call center, in a reception area, in a mail room. She may be interested in providing local services to her community: babysitting, local deliveries, pet care. She may have possessions that she would like to trade at times she doesn’t need them. So she might have a sofa bed in her front room that she would like to let out. She might have a bike, a video games console she only uses occasionally. And you’re probably thinking — because you’re all very web-aware — yes, and we’re in the era of collaborative consumption, so she can go online and do all this. She can go to Airbnb to list her sofa bed, she can go to and say, “I want to do local deliveries,” and so on. These are good sites, but I believe we can go a step further. And the key to that is a philosophy that we call modern markets for all. Markets have changed beyond recognition in the last 20 years, but only for organizations at the top of the economy. If you’re a Wall Street trader, you now take it for granted that you sell your financial assets in a system of markets that identifies the most profitable opportunities for you in real time, executes on that in microseconds within the boundaries you’ve set. It analyzes supply and demand and pricing and tells you where your next wave of opportunities are coming from. It manages counterparty risk in incredibly sophisticated ways. It’s all extremely low overhead. What have we gained at the bottom of the economy in terms of markets in the last 20 years? Basically classified adverts with a search facility. So why do we have this disparity between these incredibly sophisticated markets at the top of the economy that are increasingly sucking more and more activity and resource out of the main economy into this rarefied level of trading, and what the rest of us have? A modern market is more than a website; it’s a web of interoperable marketplaces, back office mechanisms, regulatory regimes, settlement mechanisms, liquidity sources and so on. And when a Wall Street trader comes into work in the morning, she does not write a listing for every financial derivative she wants to sell today and then post that listing on multiple websites and wait for potential buyers to get in touch and start negotiating the terms on which she might trade. In the early days of this modern markets technology, the financial institutions worked out how they could leverage their buying power, their back office processes, their relationships, their networks to shape these new markets that would create all this new activity. They asked governments for supporting regulatory regimes, and in a lot of cases they got it. But throughout the economy, there are facilities that could likewise leverage a new generation of markets for the benefit of all of us. And those facilities — I’m talking about things like the mechanisms that prove our identity, the licensing authorities that know what each of us is allowed to do legally at any given time, the processes by which we resolve disputes through official channels. These mechanisms, these facilities are not in the gift of Craigslist or Gumtree or Yahoo, they’re controlled by the state. And the policymakers who sit on top of them are, I suggest, simply not thinking about how those facilities could be used to underpin a whole new era of markets. Like everyone else, those policymakers are taking it for granted that modern markets are the preserve of organizations powerful enough to create them for themselves. Suppose we stopped taking that for granted. Suppose tomorrow morning the prime minister of Britain or the president of the U.S., or the leader of any other developed nation, woke up and said, “I’m never going to be able to create all the jobs I need in the current climate. I have got to focus on whatever economic opportunity I can get to my citizens. And for that they have to be able to access state-of-the-art markets. How do I make that happen?” And I think I can see a few eyes rolling. Politicians in a big, complex, sophisticated I.T. project? Oh, that’s going to be a disaster waiting to happen. Not necessarily. There is a precedent for technology-enabled service that has been initiated by politicians in multiple countries and has been hugely successful: national lotteries. Let’s take Britain as an example. Our government didn’t design the national lottery, it didn’t fund the national lottery, it doesn’t operate the national lottery. It simply passed the National Lottery Act and this is what followed. This act defines what a national lottery will look like. It specifies certain benefits that the state can uniquely bestow on the operators. And it puts some obligations on those operators. In terms of spreading gambling activity to the masses, this was an unqualified success. But let’s suppose that our aim is to bring new economic activity to the base of the pyramid. Could we use the same model? I believe we could. So imagine that policymakers outlined a facility. Let’s call it national e-markets, NEMs for short. Think of it as a regulated public utility. So it’s on a par with the water supply or the road network. And it’s a series of markets for low-level trade that can be fulfilled by a person or a small company. And government has certain benefits it can uniquely bestow on these markets. It’s about public spending going through these markets to buy public services at the local level. It’s about interfacing these markets direct into the highest official channels in the land. It’s about enshrining government’s role as a publicist for these markets. It’s about deregulating some sectors so that local people can enter them. So, taxi journeys might be one example. And there are certain obligations that should go with those benefits to be placed on the operators, and the key one is, of course, that the operators pay for everything, including all the interfacing into the public sector. So imagine that the operators make their return by building a percentage markup into each transaction. Imagine that there’s a concession period defined of maybe 15 years in which they can take all these benefits and run with them. And imagine that the consortia who bid to run it are told, whoever comes in at the lowest percentage markup on each transaction to fund the whole thing will get the deal. So government then exits the frame. This is now in the hands of the consortium. Either they are going to unlock an awful lot of economic opportunity and make a percentage on all of it or it’s all going to crash and burn, which is tough on their shareholders. It doesn’t bother the taxpayer necessarily. And there would be no constraints on alternative markets. So this would just be one more choice among millions of Internet forums. But it could be very different, because having access to those state-backed facilities could incentivize this consortium to seriously invest in the service. Because they would have to get a lot of these small transactions going to start making their return. So we’re talking about sectors like home hair care, the hire of toys, farm work, hire of clothes even, meals delivered to your door, services for tourists, home care. This would be a world of very small trades, but very well-informed, because national e-markets will deliver data. So this is a local person potentially deciding whether to enter the babysitting market. And they might be aware that they would have to fund vetting and training if they wanted to go into that market. They’d have to do assessment interviews with local parents who wanted a pool of babysitters. Is it worth their while? Should they be looking at other sectors? Should they be moving to another part of the country where there’s a shortage of babysitters? This kind of data can become routine. And this data can be used by investors. So if there’s a problem with a shortage of babysitters in some parts of the country and the problem is nobody can afford the vetting and training, an investor can pay for it and the system will tithe back the enhanced earnings of the individuals for maybe the next two years. This is a world of atomized capitalism. So it’s small trades by small people, but it’s very informed, safe, convenient, low-overhead and immediate. Some rough research suggests this could unlock around 100 million pounds’ worth a day of new economic activity in a country the size of the U.K. Does that sound improbable to you? That’s what a lot of people said about turbo trading in financial exchanges 20 years ago. Do not underestimate the transformative power of truly modern markets. Thank you. (Applause)

100 Replies to “Wingham Rowan: A new kind of job market

  1. We're required to be 'flexible' because of global political-economic pressures. Ignoring issues of capitalism and current neo-liberal paradigm is extremely problematic. Is flexibility a good thing? It depends on what approach you agree with. Flexibility is good if you greatly value the market based economy. If you are more critical, flexibility does not necessarily create economic stability and is a way of avoiding regulations or employee benefits (cutting costs). PART 1

  2. 0:48 "Which is a tragedy because there are employers who could use pools of very flexible local people booked completely ad hoc around when that person wants to work."

    It's romantic to think we work when we want to work, but let's not kid ourselves — it's when the employers want workers.
    Workers are disposable, trapped in precarious positions. The US already has this temp system — illegal immigrants.
    A surplus labor force allows employers to be in charge. Curb immigration and it reverses.

  3. PART 2 Have markets changed? It's a complex issue and varies depending on the subject. One can argue that the markets are split into many different components. The market in developing nations have created many social, economic and political problems. Chinese working conditions are similar to that of the 18th century. In many developing countries capital is heavily concentrated.

  4. Actually, Google had some seed money from the CIA.

    I don't know about Polio and Smallpox, but Insulin was discovered by a Canadian scientist who refused to capitalize on it. It didn't become the property of some big pharmaceutical unlike whats infesting the US.

  5. This seems like a great opportunity for students with variable course load and social events, who don't want the obligations put on by a fixed part time job.

  6. While a dream, i fear that this is all that it will be. There are several industries where we have been able to see employees work from home and have extremely flexible hours, but those workers are not the ones usually getting to the top or being paid well. For make shift workers in low skilled jobs (like retail) this allows companies to have to commit less to employees and they are allowed to be off the hook for ss and benifits. Employeers will end up benifiting way more than the average worke

  7. The market the politicians put together for us on Wall Street did not screw us over did it? Let’s hope we all have our jobs after this.

  8. Did we need regulation to create the personal computer revolution? His “plan” is happening already on its own, through online job portals and websites. His is just one method competing with many. Let's wait and see which one lands on top. There is absolutely no need for regulators to pick their favorite one to go with, least of all the speaker’s. Let us do that! If our politicians pick the wrong method, we might all face unemployment!

  9. *Sighs* A lot of what he talks about, would be available in the US naturally, and people are trying to find loop holes around regulations and bureaucracy to do so…

  10. So, are you saying that these services are in the US? I was about to comment with that very question. Is there an org I can help get something like this rolling? Something like this would really be great for anyone and everyone.

  11. OMG! This must happen!! I really can't believe how excited I just got about this. This IDEA is the alternative to any socialist system. A beautiful play for capitalism via technology.

  12. This doesn't address the inherent flaw with fiat money and our global human labor inefficiently problems. Until those are addressed, EVERYTHING is meaningless.

  13. I want to back this! I want to be behind it! You have my time, effort, energy, resources, whatever it takes, I must make this happen. What can I do?

  14. I was actually theorising a system that would make this possible just last week. I'm glad someone else out there has a similar thought!

  15. Want this in the US? There's now a petition on asking the president to make it happen. It's at: (forward slash) VIKE.

  16. And if we get enough signatures will, they'll officially list it, with the title, "Create a regulatory framework enabling an "Electronic Job Market" for small-businesses and middle-class entrepreneurs" Sign now (and tell your friends about it, too)!

  17. i hope to see a universal 3 day work week for everyone because we are getting richer and more resourceful. 3 day contribution by working member should be more than enough.

  18. we should let machines work while people still get payed. this way people can pursue whatever they like, and learn the things that are to their interest. basic high school education should probably remain compulsory though.

  19. Exactly! It's nice if this theory is applied and made into a reality; this would help both small businesses and the hire-es alike and equally. But somehow, somewhere, big conglomerates would eventually find a way to exploit this system and ruin it for all.

  20. Work shouldn't even exist to be honest. 99% of today's jobs can be replaced by automated systems with the resources we have at our disposal TODAY. The 1% can be easily solved by having people volunteer for these jobs. Money is just materialized greed, and it (along with human greed) is the main thing holding us back as a species from progressing to a new era of abundance and equality. The rich will always want more, and until that changes, humanity will never prosper.

  21. The French minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert asked a group of businessmen what the government could do to help business, since Louis XIV had run the economy into the ground. In response to Colbert’s question, one man, a manufacturer named Legendre, stood up and said, “Laissez-nous faire,” meaning “Let us alone.” Apparently, the French businessmen of the seventeenth century had more courage than their American counterparts of the twentieth [and twenty-first] and a better understanding of economics.

  22. This is on the far opposite side of the idea of the 4 Hour Workweek. I won't do anything resembling work for less than $500 an hour.

  23. Why do algorithms use systems that do stuff quickly? Because they are consistent and fast. People can't do black-box trading or high-frequency room renting.

    And yes, selling lottery tickets is just as simple as managing time resources. And just as lucrative, hence the system will just spread itself. And pigs fly.

  24. There's now a petition at, asking the president to set up such a system. You can sign the petition at: (forward slash) VIKE

  25. If what you mean is some amount of public funding was used for most innovation, then you would be correct. But I don't think you're saying that.
    I believe you are saying that government almost always is responsible for innovation.
    That, I would say, is wrong. People pursue innovation for wealth, knowledge, or idealism. This is irrespective of government.
    James Maxwell and Tesla would still have devised their ideas and inventions without government subsidy.

  26. It's the desire build into each and every one of us to always want more material possessions. There are people who will always strive to be richer than others, as our culture and mindset dictate that people are better and more successful if they live in a bigger house. We always strive to earn more money so we can have more things. Imagine you could go to an automated store and pick out anything you wanted for free. If you had the ability to do so, people would naturally just take what they need

  27. Not taboo, just stereotypical. Think of where their lineage most likely comes from. Wealthy people, for the most part, keep their wealth within their family. It has little to do with religious beliefs.
    It may be true that they are Jews, but are all Jews wealthy? No, although some, same as with Christians, are wealthy. Jews have been the scapegoat of the world for thousands of years. Sadly, some people use their harsh history as evidence that they've been undermining the rest of the world.

  28. What this guy is saying the state governments already provide (issuing professional licenses). The US needs less government intervention. If his idea was truly economically feasible private enterprise would have already done it. Don't let this euro-crat feed you a load of bull shit covered with roses.

  29. How is wealth "redistributed" from poor to the rich? Explain that. Were the poor wealthy at some point?

    Also, where do you think capital comes from in capitalistic economies? Some monopoly man looking guy? No. It comes from you and I, and my neighbor and anyone else who decides to be a saver. Don't be a fucking idiot.

  30. Or how about somebody ten years from now when gas is $15 a gallon and either has to work at home or within bicycle distance from work? What about someone who has to take off a couple days for his collective to get the hydroponic bean harvest and drying canning done? Or how about the person who has to help launder clothes because the suns out that day after days of clouds and their laundry equipment runs on solar? You need a more eclectic view of the workplace in the next thirty years.

  31. "The US needs less government intervention"

    Again, why? You're still just decreeing things (which is fun but not productive).

    In a rebuttal (to the nothing you put forward): one of the many important areas of government intervention in business is on their effect on the environment; the free market solution would be to let the companies do what they want to the air, and if it gets bad enough (like China) then another company can "fill the void" by selling us fresh air… is that really better?

  32. Money is created out of thin air, worth nothing, transferring wealth from those that have money to those who get the newly minted (nowdays only digitally created) money, destroying through inflation the savings of those who do not get this newly minted money at the same time.

  33. I'm curious to understand what your definition of innovation is. If Maxwell and Tesla are not considered innovators, then who are innovators?
    I agree that parts of government do play a role but I disagree that its in innovation. It seems to me whenever government has tried to spur innovation it has usually failed. It has failed the education system, it has failed in providing business services, our infrastructure is failing, etc.
    I find it crazy to think that more money will fix these problems.

  34. ahem, sorry, not savers. spenders and private investors. people saving causes unemployment. look it up. dbafi….

  35. Your choice of environment seems to be one option where governmental intervention is justified, because third parties are being affected by companies polluting the air. This imposes a cost on third parties.
    However, this is not to say that government intervention is a good thing. There is still far too much of it and it is hampering our economy and our liberties.
    Government decreeing that cars must be equipped with catalytic converters is justified; requiring airbags is not.

  36. On the contrary, I think this system proves the value of labor. The more reliable the worker, the more they are worth. If a company is looking for someone who is highly reliable, they will pay for that labor. If they can't afford it, they can take the risk of getting someone who is less reliable.
    Walmart CEOs pay their workers according to their labor demands. They sell products to cover the costs and provide a profit.
    This is true for all companies, not just Walmart.

  37. typical clueless liberal living in world of 'feel-good' philosophy.
    anything to spare your precious emotions, and most of all avoid hard truths
    "99% of work replaced by machines"?do you enjoy shooting of wishful statements as fasts

    "equality"? since when is that a real thing
    because of the sweat, blood and tears (industrial rev) is that you are now privilege to comfort, thing won by sweat are kept by sweat! there is no 'greed' boogieman. progress is for fighters! and by fighters it was won

  38. Considering airbags empirically (that's key) lower the chance of injury, and therefore medical costs – considering in many ways that's a sociatal issue, to keep healthcare costs down – it seems fine to me. It's the same pragmatic reason drinking while driving is illegal: it raises the chance of injury and transitively the cost of healthcare.

    That said, I'll concur that not all possible intervention by the government is going to be agreed on by all people. But then again, most people are idiots.

  39. Did I ask you anything? Also, educate yourself and broaden your simple mind before you even try to comprehend the range of things i was mentioning. Zeitgeist is a good place to start. If you believe that equality should not exist, then it saddens me to know that people like you actually exist. Also, those "wishful statements" are in fact, facts. Check the current progress of technology and raw resources on our planet before you make dumb assumptions. I wont even bother to argue with you anymore.

  40. I don't think people with a lot of money are the problem, but rather it's us comparing ourselves to them and thinking that we need to have what they have. If you have the vision for creating a store where people can get everything they need for free, then by all means go out and do it, don't wait on someone else, because they're probably busy doing something else, like building their own vision (even if that vision is of them selves sitting on the couch watching TV)

  41. I would totally agree with you, we shouldn't take their idea of what success is but rather form our own. But the problem is that if I made that store I would still need to buy the things myself to be able to give the stuff out for free.The entire system needs to work this way for it to be possible.

    I recommend watching "Thrive", it is an eye-opening film available here on youtube. You will understand why, unfortunately, I could never do such a thing…

  42. I never said I could never do it, but it would only be possible if most of the world did it, and it was accepted as a common thing over time, it would take a revolution of thinking about our world, and all it takes to do that is to get common people informed on what's really going on, and that it's all possible if we accept it. The material requirements are already available.

  43. Of course there's the byproduct of medical costs. No man is an island unto himself. But it is still an abridgment for the state to force me to protect myself.
    Drunk driving is illegal because it has 3rd party consequences. Someone else is injured because of a person's choice to drink and drive.
    Most people are not idiots. Average IQs increase every 10 years. Most people know what is in their best interest. They should be allowed to make their own choices, even if they are bad choice like drugs.

  44. Commission doesn't work for every type of employment. How do you provide commission to a technician fixing a product?
    Employees do receive a percentage of the companies profits, that's what their paycheck is! If the labor is more valuable than what the company pays, then said employees will go to where they will be paid more. So wages would go up to keep those employees.
    Most PEOPLE will happily pay less if they can get away with it. I would rather pay less for a TV than more. Is that wrong?

  45. "Of course there's the byproduct of medical costs. No man is an island unto himself." + "Drunk driving is illegal because it has 3rd party consequences." = things that drive up medical costs for 3rd parties should be penalized or illegal. At least IMO and in the majorities opinion. If we have a way to demonstrably lower the cost of medicine without messing with essential personal freedoms, we go for it. And not having airbags – a cheap lifesaver – isn't a freedom I or most give two shits about.

  46. Lol…yes, use China as an example of free market related eco damage. Despite some Free Market principles, China has full gov't control and oversight. Not exactly a great example. Actually seems to prove the opposite of what you claim.

  47. You missed the point of the example; the part in quotes could be completely disregarded, I used that an example of air quality not a lack of an EPA proxy (which, actually, they did lack until very recently and it's still not nearly as effective as our EPA). I am curious if you can find any example of China's government stepping in and telling any company to stop pumping shit into the atmosphere, as I tried for your benefit but couldn't… I googled "china on air pollution" and.. well, just do it

  48. I'm sure you could google this, I didn't but read it in the paper a few days back, that China had in fact ordered a large number of factories in Beijing to shut down.

    However, when the EPA introduces ridiculous guidelines and makes it all but impossible for new factories to open in America, where do they go? Low regulation 3rd world countries and places like China and India.

  49. You've completely lost all sense of proportion. You have now said it is okay for government to regulate ANY product or decision that can increase medical costs. That means alcohol, staplers, water bottles, pools, and just about everything which is absolutely ludicrous. At what point does the government stop regulating and allow people to make their own choices?

    You keep saying "the majority." You are invoking tyranny of the majority, oppressing the smallest minority, the individual.

  50. I didn't say any product or decision. I'm for sensible restrictions. At what point did I indicate that because airbags are cheap lifesavers and that that is a good idea to have on all vehicles == everything else under the sun is cool now too? Huh?

  51. The government should only do things that individual people can't. Therefore, pollution needs to be controlled by government but the government should not intervene when it is unnecessary.

  52. What sort of nightmare? Wingham Rowan described how bring the power of markets to working folks. Wall Street has markets for things (commodities) and rights to things (securities). Main Street should catch-up and put modern marketing technology and techniques to work for the workers. This will happen when Government sets it up and Wall Street then sees that it can profit by these markets. Labor is something to sell and to securitize, just like pork or junk bonds.

  53. You make it sound like free-market capitalists intentionally want to kill the environment, just like republicans want to kill the elderly. A country like America will not develop the environment such as that of China, for the power of the American citizen is much more powerful than that of a Chinese citizen, and we won't let it happen. You have to remember the regime that China has been under. Lessened government regulation on the business does not mean destroying the government.

  54. I don't think free-market capitalists want to do damage for damage's sake. Pretty sure I didn't say anything even close to that, either.

    Some free-market capitalists want to make money without anyone telling them that they can't do it in any certain way (and if that happens to hurt people – particularly in a detached and somewhat convoluted way to distance themselves from it, like the pumping of toxins into the atmosphere – they'll probably shrug it off; maybe cry, but do it anyway).

  55. So what happens when the free market allows

    1. Corporations to move all businesses operations to China
    2. Corporations to engage in price wars with small businesses, which puts them out of business, allows the corporation to take up even MORE market space, and send even MORE jobs to China
    3. Corporations to use well entrenched blocking strategies to prevent small businesses from operating, thus preventing new jobs from being created.

    What's your solution then? Honest question.

  56. I think I answered most of the points you've presented. Here:

    h t t p : / / economyisland . wordpress . com/2012/12/18/the-venus-project/

  57. So you're not going to open the link because it's about the venus project?

    You don't even know if it's for or against the project. If it praises it or denounces it. You wouldn't happen to also be a creationist by any chance, would you?

  58. i opened the link, but since its 6:24 AM i really dont have the energy to go through it now. i am for the venus project btw, and the link is also broken, i had to search "the venus project" on the blog to find it.

  59. Good way to leverage technology to help everyone out. There are many more ideas like this out there' they may not all work, but it is worth giving them a try, and is certainly better than doing nothing while many are starving or have other needs and want to contribute more. Kudos!

  60. Because as well all know, any company that is boycotted goes under…

    I honestly couldn't find a single consumer boycott that was successful since the start of boycotting. And I did try. There have been a couple of successful boycotts in history, and they were employee boycotts backed by unions (which goes back to government).

    Technology is the progression of our tools, not a whistle blower. And I do wish people would stop decreeing things; give reasons for why you think the things you think.

  61. Fiscal reasons for one. I'm not aware of tax classes in other contries but here in Portugal independent workers are largelly in disavantage when compared to companies or workers with a contract. Since it's considered "ocasional" work its over taxed and the benefits are between very low and zero.

  62. I found that really informative. I was so puzzled witnessing my friend change from being lame to a ladies man. He began attracting chicks over night. I was astounded. He pretended he failed to realize. He then explained it to me while he was wasted. He revealed he learned from the Jake Ayres Master Attraction Formula. Google it and you will discover it… He's dating a stunner… Lucky fucker! Where are the best videos on Youtube?

  63. Life sucks. My buddy has started dating a 10 basically because 60 days back he joined a site called Master Attraction (Google it if you'd like to know more.) I'm envious because I wish to fall madly in love as well. I'm gonna look at this Jake Ayres man's stuff. Surprising thing is, my friend once had NO good fortune with females. How can you change so fast? His lady's like a model.

  64. God. I'm envious with regards to my cousin. He has actually been single permanently. Yet he got a catalogue model to proclaim to him she has fallen deeply in love with him in less than a thirty day period. How can that be thinkable? He laughed and said he obtained the Cupid Love System (Google it!) I wish someone gorgeous said that to me… I really don't remember ever before seeing him so cheerful. Kind of makes me feel bad.

  65. How'd you send that message then? The computer you used to send that message put out TONS of carbon into the environment when it was manufactured and a good deal more since from the electricity it consumes (and even if your power comes from wind, tons of nasty shit went into the environment to make those windmills). If you're consuming anything (not in the "food" sense specifically but in the "goods" sense), you're almost certainly putting nasty pollutants into the environment. Sorry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *