UCLA professor says he's homeless due to low pay

https://www.kron4.com/news/california/ucla-professor-says-hes-homeless-due-to-low-pay/

by iancmceachern • 2 years ago

82 111 2 years ago

yial• 2 years ago

All ideas of fair pay aside (which I agree that he should get a raise!)

I don’t understand how he couldn’t afford $2,500 per month on $70,000 per year. Wouldn’t his take home per month be around $4,000-4,500?

Not that it would be easy to live on the remainder necessarily …. But I know I have at one point lived on $2,800 per month while paying $1,200. (In a lower cost of living area ).

iLoveOncall• 2 years ago

I don’t understand how he couldn’t afford $2,500 per month on $70,000 per year.

People are just terrible at personal finance. I have friends that earn $300K that have no savings.

I suggest watching the YouTube channel Caleb Hammer if you want to truly understand how easy it is for some people to overspend and go into debt.

Cordiali• 2 years ago

I thought it was a bit odd that he only seems to be considering living in Westwood.

I checked out the site referenced, and there's suburbs reasonably close with average rents 30-40% lower than that suburb. That's within a ~45 min. bus ride, according to Google.

Also damn, there's even free wifi on some of those buses.

j7ake• 2 years ago

Technically he’s a lecturer not a professor. Generally lecturers are treated like trash.

switch0072• 2 years ago

(Brit here). I'm not saying it's a huge salary at all but $70k is around $4500/mo after tax. If his rent was $2500, that leaves $2000 for everything else, which doesn't seem to equal homeless? Paycheck to paycheck probably I guess. What am I missing?

willcipriano• 2 years ago

I’m only being paid $70,000 for this academic year

hmm...

ac·a·dem·ic year
the period of the year during which students attend an educational institution, usually from September to June.

That's around 100k annualized. Something is rotten in Denmark.

switch0072• 2 years ago

I think that's over-interpreting his words

orionsbelt2• 2 years ago

Nothing - American here and 100% agree with you.

charlieyu1• 2 years ago

2500 per month of rent is 30k per year. 70k is just a bit more than twice of that. In UK he won’t even pass credit checks for renting

delichon• 2 years ago

This is a physicist who could likely make much more in the private sector. That's a compromise I've had to make too. I spend my weekdays doing work that I have little interest in and has less chance of improving the human condition, but it let me buy a house and pay the taxes and fees. If I instead choose to do what I'm interested in I'd be lucky to afford renting a room in someone else's house.

I admire the guy for choosing to do more important work and making sacrifices to do it. But I'm not owed a decent salary in return for following my own dreams rather than my employer's dreams. Nobody is.

avg_dev3• 2 years ago

Of course you are correct, nobody is ever promised anything like the ability to fulfill their dreams or to live a decent quality of life. But maybe the universities could pay them a living wage for teaching six classes a week.

orionsbelt2• 2 years ago

$70k is a living wage in Los Angeles; he his homeless by choice. To be clear, I’m not saying he is not underpaid. He might need a roommate and to live in a crappy apartment and not in Westwood to make it workable, which does not seem fair for a PhD teaching physics. But it’s not homeless level.

wolfram74• 2 years ago

You've done a bit of a bait and switch, "fulfill their dreams" and "decent quality of life" are two very different standards. One, sure, we're in a society and sometimes that calls for sacrifice, the other, if we can't promise a decent life we shouldn't be surprised when people break the contract and act in ways that hurt the common good.

Ekaros• 2 years ago

Supply and demand, the pay would increase if there was no one willing to take the job. Maybe gig workers and fast food workers and everyone else also should be paid living wage... I think they are lot more deserving and necessary than people working in universities.

poincaredisk• 2 years ago

But I'm not owed a decent salary in return for following my own dreams rather than my employer's dreams. Nobody is.

Of course. On the other hand, one has to wonder which of this two occupations helps humanity more, and it's this the one that's paid better. And if not, should we rethink the way we reward work to prioritize things that help society instead.

CuriouslyC• 2 years ago

In the age of precision psychological influence and constant bombardment with low grade mind control, Capitalism is trash. To the most rapacious, the loudest, the most insidious go the spoils. If we're gonna keep the current system we need to slam the ban hammer on advertising and marketing with righteous fury.

nordsieck3• 2 years ago

should we rethink the way we reward work to prioritize things that help society instead.

The problem is that everyone has different ideas about what helps society.

At least the current system, where people are compensated based on supply and demand, people actually want what's being produced. In contrast to the old soviet system where top down production decisions mean that what's "best for society" is of no use to pretty much anyone except those people who needed to fill their quota.

s1artibartfast2• 2 years ago

Sounds like there is an excess supply of physicists and physics professors, so on the margin they are no help at all.

ricksunny• 2 years ago

And then might the society be worse off for lacking the physics/scientific advancements by not supporting adequately an an individual to remain on the scientific path.

petesergeant• 2 years ago

The end result of this is that only people who are independently wealthy or who can’t make the private sector work for them end up as profs, which seems like a worse situation for society.

Cheer2171• 2 years ago

I admire the guy for choosing to do more important work and making sacrifices to do it. But I'm not owed a decent salary in return for following my own dreams rather than my employer's dreams. Nobody is.

Students at public universities deserve good instructors. Stop applying a capitalist market rationale to public services.

Are you one of those people who thinks that whatever price the market offers for labor is axiomatically fair?

robertlagrant4• 2 years ago

Stop applying a capitalist market rationale to public services.

We're discussing wages. Wages are all about that rationale. If you make a choice you should abide by it.

This is nothing to do with what students "deserve", whatever that means.

softsound• 2 years ago

Public services? Isn't that exactly why he is paid less.

Just imagine if he worked somewhere private.

Deserve is an interesting phrase, who really does deserve more? The more you go down that rabbit hole the less you'll think people deserve in general.

That said. I only have an associate degree and even I made $70k at a regular tech job working with someone with a PhD. I got lucky though before, too bad he didn't.

wesselbindt2• 2 years ago

But I'm not owed a decent salary in return for following my own dreams rather than my employer's dreams. Nobody is.

Ok, but he is owed a decent salary for performing an important job. Without guys like this, we don't have a next generation of physicists (most of whom will move into the private sector).

thierrydamiba• 2 years ago

I’m not exactly sure that’s how the world works…

lolinder• 2 years ago

Without guys like this, we don't have a next generation of physicists (most of whom will move into the private sector).

There are plenty of people who would be totally happy to step into this professor's shoes at his current rate of pay just to have a position in academia. We have too many PhDs—there are more people who want a position in academia than academia can support.

We're not faced with the prospect of not being able to train a next generation of physicists, but there's a real possibility that the next generation doesn't view academia as the ideal place to be—the physics equivalent of Broadway. If that happens, fewer people will put up with low-valued positions and a dangled tenure carrot, and the college job market will adapt.

In the meantime we're not going to solve the problem of academic jobs being overvalued by the workforce by artificially inflating pay for the lucky few who landed an academic job at all.

beachtaxidriver• 2 years ago

Amen. If the net present value and risk of being a professor paid as well as dealing with corporate B.S. I know which I would do...

oysterville• 2 years ago

I'm of the mind that if we had the best in the field educating the next generations and compensated them well that we would end up with better qualified graduates. It seems like this would be the result at all levels of education, really.

In America we are doing the opposite, and then wondering why the results are sub optimal.

salawat• 2 years ago

But I'm not owed a decent salary in return for following my own dreams rather than my employer's dreams. Nobody is.

Why should that employer's dreams take primacy over anyone elses?

The answer: there isn't a reason why. All semblance of economic activity is based on a fiction. That fiction has been guided to structurally elevate a subset of people's wishes and motivations over everyone else's, including yours. And you're totally okay with that state of affairs. Useful idiot much?

Can at least applaud the guy for sticking to his principles. Sometimes society needs a good nut kick to realize it's destroying itself. That it collectively takes so many ruined lives to do so is the true tragedy of our times.

Have7878forever• 2 years ago

Move to China and Russia. He will be way more appreciated there with significantly lower cost of living. Furthermore he will produce many more important students there in astrophysics than in USA even if he can extend his life by 6x time more. East is the future. Dont waste it in the sunset west. If he truly loves teaching move to China. Humanity future lies in the east in the next 100 years.

andrewmcwatters2• 2 years ago

Man with highly educated background ignores basic economic situation that also affects millions of other people.

Slow news day.

sameoldtune• 2 years ago

I expect professors to be homeless too.

lainga• 2 years ago

What solution do you propose? No more UCLA?

Muromec• 2 years ago

He can grow potatoes and sale contraband wares at the illegal market or immigrate to US and find a good paying job there. Oh wait, I though it was about 90ies in here places again.

winter_blue• 2 years ago

You mean an artificial economic situation that NIMBYs have created by making it nearly impossible to build new homes.

It’s not a fair situation from any perspective. NIMBYs are slowly destroying California’s heart, and turning it into a place where only people with a 100k+ (and soon 200k+) income can afford a home.

andrewmcwatters2• 2 years ago

Then leave.

egypturnash• 2 years ago

alternatively:

this basic economic situation has gotten so fucked up that even a traditionally solid middle-class gig like "professor at moderately prestigious university" can't pay his bills

avg_dev3• 2 years ago

yes, this. as others have pointed out: of course it is (understatedly) terrible that so many people who work various types of jobs cannot pay their bills. all that i see happening here is that the low income bar for being able to survive and live a decent life is getting higher and higher; it is not that there are not many others who also should be able to live a decent life.

(and yes, i do understand the difference between a lecturer and a professor, and i do understand about roommates, and i do understand about living in a cheaper cost-of-living area. i think these are all reasonable points. but i still think that it would be nice if someone could live a good life a distance from work that doesn't make their commute an absolute dread and still be able to afford basic things. yes, i believe everyone deserves this, no matter what type of work that they do. no, i don't think that's the direction we are currently headed.)

readingnews• 2 years ago

I am no astrophysicist, but he notes:

    “Hi everyone, my name is Daniel, and I’m an astrophysics professor at UCLA. I’m only being paid $70,000 for this academic year,” McKeown says in the video.
 
    McKeown, listed as a lecturer on UCLA’s website, says he had to move out of his apartment because he could no longer afford the rent.

    McKeown says his rent was $2,500 a month. According to RentCafe, the average rent is $3,700 in Westwood.

Hrm, I have no idea what his actual situation or bills are. But 70k is not chump change, and 2.5k rent seems "manageable". Lets see, if his is single, that puts tax at 22%. It is probably 30% with state and local, minus SS tax. Lets kick it up to 36%.

(70000-(70000*0.36))/12.0=3733.33

Ok he is left with 3733.33-2500=1233.33 a month, that is BRUTAL, but I know people that live on less than that after a home mortgage and car note.

Again, I have no idea of his situation. Maybe student loans, maybe a car note, medical expenses, etc, but to state out loud that you have probably 1.2k a month after rent and can not possibly live without _a hundred grand_ extra (what he is trying to raise... which is EIGHT THOUSAND A MONTH EXTRA) seems a bit, I am not sure, overreacting? I am just conflicted about this story. I have really good friends that would do a hulluva lot for a 70k job with a 2.5k rent, but at the same time, it is true we are paying professors (and educators in general) far too little.

Is this just to make a statement maybe?

cute_boi2• 2 years ago

You haven't done anything extra like insurance, mobile bills, other loans etc... which is also costly.

If he is married, has obligations to support parents, you are out of luck.

jcranmer• 2 years ago

If he is married

If he is married, then his spouse (especially given the marital demographics of people holding advanced degrees) is quite likely also contributing income, and decently likely to be contributing income at least as much as he is. Now married with kids is a different ballgame, but married per se isn't going to be a financial burden.

mistrial9• 2 years ago

his taxes in total are more than thirty six percent in California, and there is no mention of debt service costs.

rconti3• 2 years ago

I posted the smartasset tax calculator link in this thread but the upshot is his state taxes should be a bit over 4% effective, or about $3k.

Total effective tax burden (federal, fica, plus CA) on this pay amount for a single person with no other circumstances is just shy of 23%.

wesselbindt2• 2 years ago

Going from "I don't know this guy's situation" to "This guy is just making a statement" is a pretty big leap.

jncfhnb2• 2 years ago

He is asking for 100k, not 100k extra.

Factor in state and local taxes, utilities, necessary expenses, transportation, etc. it seems fully believable that he is paycheck to paycheck which gradually boils down to debt when life rolls a 1 and you have to pay $500 to fix something.

rconti3• 2 years ago

The linked article quotes him: “I’m asking for $100,000 so I can afford my rent”.

I take that to mean $100k total, which is $2500 pre-tax.

I suspect his effective tax rate is significantly below your numbers. 22% may be the marginal federal tax rate on $70k (I didn’t check), but that would probably put his effective federal rate in the low teens.

EDIT: just checked, just below 11% according to this SmartAsset calculator which puts take-home just shy of $54k or $4500 a month. Only if he has ZERO other obligations like child support or student loans.

https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#DV9x0OBRA9

tw2024101316• 2 years ago

There are different ways to be homeless (some not very good, and some worse). I don't know how many people have run the simulation in their heads before, but being a university professor is just about the most favorable set of conditions that you could have for a person who is forced into being (or chooses to be) homeless.

It doesn't look like low pay is the dispositive cause. This looks like it's cost of housing.

I have a simple solution to address housing costs: tax the hell out of rentseeking. We should be shooting for a scenario where, five years out starting from right now, a Schedule E filer who owns additional residential properties where they are not an occupant should only be able to net 10% in 2028 for the same gross in 2023.

mistersquid2• 2 years ago

McKeown should be paid more, without question, but he is a lecturer, not a faculty member. His title and appointment is not as a "Professor". [0]

This is due to the hierarchical ranking system of academic institutions. McKeown's qualifications may be the same as his more highly ranked colleagues, but the tiered system which rewards research does not pay as much for lecturers whose primary assignment is to teach.

[0] https://www.pa.ucla.edu/lecturers.html#:~:text=physics.ucla....

SoftTalker2• 2 years ago

Yes, lecturer is a low level academic position, using the word "professor" to describe him is inaccurate, even though he has a Ph.D. If he is teaching one class, it likely isn't even a full-time position.

Academics are also typically paid a 10-month salary (the "academic year" he mentions), if they teach summer classes that is separate "summer pay." At research universities, part of a professor's salary is also funded by research grant awards they win.

rconti3• 2 years ago

It’s in the article. 6 classes a year, so presumably a 3/3.

BobaFloutist• 2 years ago

I mean, yeah, that's kind of the problem.

beezle• 2 years ago

Per smartasset.com:

70K salary in Los Angeles - Gross $5,833/mo, filing single, including federal, state, fica, state disability gives a monthly take home of $4,447

So find it hard to believe he is "homeless", seems to be more by choice. And if the take home after paying rent is still too high, do like most others do - get a roommate to share expenses.

65• 2 years ago

Yeah, seems obvious getting a roommate would be the answer here. I'm not sure if that's not as culturally acceptable in LA as here in NYC but there are people in their 40s and beyond who have roommates.

alephnerd3• 2 years ago

It's culturally acceptable to get a roommate in LA - especially to live in a neighborhood like Westwood.

Furthermore, he could live 20 minutes away in another neighborhood instead of Westwood - which is LA's version of Lower East Side in NYC - and get a 1bdrm for $1800-2400.

This is truly out of touch, because so many Los Angelenos have a combined household income at or below $70,000 yet are able to raise families and live a middle class life in LA.

This does not mean that lecturer pay shouldn't be increased - lecturers in humanities fields at UCLA get paid WAAAAY worse than $70k, and would fight to get that kind of a salary alone.

jncfhnb2• 2 years ago

This comic has sat in my head for a long time: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/college-level-mathematics

It’s now outdated, and the numbers are worse

flatline• 2 years ago

Academia is exploitative. The financial incentives are a symptom of the bigger problem. Is university career training for industry or for an academic track? It is not made clear to people entering the system, and is often murky to everyone years into a degree. There is encouragement for education for its own sake, there’s encouragement for education for a high paying career, and there’s encouragement to merge these two and enter academia in a professional capacity. There’s often a mountain of undischargeable personal debt behind it.

What people are typically not told is that financially stable academic positions are either political or hard to come by. It’s like professional sports: you can be a pro and just short of top notch and you’ll be playing in the minors for your career, making pennies. This could take the form of endless low-paying postdoctoral gigs, or the crown prize, an associate professorship with little or no benefits and a salary that just lets you scrape by.

In the meantime you are expected to pour your heart and soul into the endeavor. There is some reward in that but it is fleeting, and once you have committed to a career path the momentum to change tracks can be a real obstacle. Academia will suck you dry and demand more. Unless you end up with a tenured position at the end of that, it’s not sustainable unless you have another source of financial backing, like a spouse with a “real job.”

The US doesn’t really value education. Those who do are idealistic or exploitative, sometimes both. You’re buying into a deeply dysfunctional system and should at least go into it with eyes open.

qeternity• 2 years ago

Academia is exploitative.

As another commenter noted, this person could likely easily go into the private sector and earn multiples of their salary. Also $70k is smack on for median salaries in LA. This person chooses to work in academia. He is not being exploited. Presumably he finds it more fulfilling to do what he does currently. And good for him. But that’s a luxury. Nothing in life guarantees your dream job and your dream salary.

lenkite• 2 years ago

Lol at having a home being a luxury for a "dream job" - is this the New American Dream that Americans want the rest of the world to adopt ?

catchcatchcatch• 2 years ago

He can get another job most scientists need to stock shelves or something puts their phd in perspective

oatmeal1• 2 years ago

Low pay isn't the problem. There's nowhere $70k shouldn't enable you to afford rent. Setback requirements, and single use & single family zoning are the problem.

alephnerd3• 2 years ago

There's nowhere $70k shouldn't enable you to afford rent

You can afford to rent a 1 bedroom on a $70k salary in Los Angeles - not in Westwood (the bougie neighborhood that UCLA is located in), but take the 405 and commute from the Valley.

rdudek• 2 years ago

Wonder how much UCLA administrators get paid compared to faculty?

dekhn2• 2 years ago

All of UC's pay is online at https://ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/ If you search for administrator (although dean might be a better term?) you will see folks like the head of the Hammer Musuem, which is affiliated with UCLA, makes gross $437K. Her job title is Academic Administrator VII (the highest level in that job type). Similarly, the Dean for UC Extension (basically a night-school for UC) makes a similar salary. Other Academic Administrator VII make "much less"- all the way down to $26K or even $0.

As an anecdote, let me explain how the game is played. I had two different postdoc advisors at Berkeley. Both were tenure-track professors with good publication records. The first one negotiated her own startup package (starting professors get lab money and lab space to get started) and ended up with a small collection of rooms (3) on a crowded floor, with terrible IT infra. She eventually convinced the facilities manager to give her an IT room (nothing quite like watching your advisor waggle her body to get space) and eventually got tenure- 12 years after starting. The second advisor brought a lawyer to his negotiation and secured a full lab space with promises of more, a $1+M startup fund, and a number of other key concessions; he got tenure in 5 more years. The first professor said it was "unseemly" that the second professor had brought a negotiator- but the reality is that the Deans who act as the university representative are quite knowledgeable and seek to bring on faculty for the lowest prices, while paying themselves the excess.

robertlagrant4• 2 years ago

How is he homeless? Can someone break down where that 70k goes? It's about $5.8k/month gross.

linguae3• 2 years ago

As someone who recently left an industry job to teach full-time at a community college, I have mixed feelings about the situation of this physics lecturer. I don’t want to dismiss the difficulties that many people, including academics, face in the housing market. In places like Los Angeles and Silicon Valley it’s rough for those having to pay market rates for housing unless they have extremely high incomes.

However, I feel that the lecturer, who started his position at UCLA last year, didn’t do enough homework regarding academic salaries. $70,000 for a non-tenured lecturer is normal, maybe above average, and in fact there are many tenure-track assistant professors who make about the same. To add, UCLA is in a very expensive area. He will have to compete against well-heeled people who want to live within close proximity to some of the nation’s wealthiest areas, such as Santa Monica and Beverly Hills. A physics lecturer simply can’t compete against Hollywood.

In addition, a $70,000 annual salary means that he could qualify for a rental no more than $1944 per month due to the standard 3x the rent requirement a lot of California landlords have. A cursory search on Craigslist shows plenty of one-bedroom apartments in Los Angeles County that are within this budget. Granted, they may not be the nicest complexes in the nicest neighborhoods, and they may require a commute, but the Los Angeles metro area does have extensive public transportation, and nobody goes into academia expecting a luxurious lifestyle on an academic salary. An academic who wants to make serious money needs to take advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities outside the institution.

In addition, there are plenty of grad students and postdocs making less than $70,000 who attend schools like UCLA that are in very expensive areas. Once again, I don’t want to dismiss the challenges they have. I myself lived in Santa Cruz County for over a decade and I know firsthand the challenge of being a grad student at UC Santa Cruz dealing with the area’s notoriously difficult housing market.

But I have a feeling we’re being withheld useful information about his finances. Does he have massive student loans impacting his budget? Does he have other obligations such as taking care of family members? Why wasn’t he able to take advantage of UCLA’s faculty housing?

I just feel that this guy didn’t do enough homework about the realities of being an academic, especially one living in a very expensive area. I’m an academic in Silicon Valley and I’m fully aware of the tradeoffs of choosing this lifestyle over industry. Yes, I’d like a bigger home closer to work, and I have no idea how I’d raise a family (though I’m single now so I don’t need to worry). But at the same time I enjoy the freedom I have in academia; I have far more research freedom as a community college instructor than I did as an industry researcher. I also love teaching and guiding students.

alephnerd3• 2 years ago

Yeah, I think this article does a massive disservice to the issue of low pay for contract faculty and postdocs by highlighting the relative out-of-touchness of McKeown while ignoring how a lot of lecturers and post-docs (at UCs like UCLA as well as other institutions) earn well below $70k depending on the field.

Why wasn’t he able to take advantage of UCLA’s faculty housing

Lecturers are at the lowest priority for UCLA Faculty Housing.

That said, you can afford a 1bdrm on $70k in LA, just not in Westwood. He'd have to commute from the Valley if he wants to pay less than $2500/mo.

OutOfHere• 2 years ago

He should get the message that they don't need him there. He should quit and get a real job in industry that pays 100-200k. It may require him to move, but not be homeless.

FfejL• 2 years ago

“Technically, I am homeless. I do not have a place of my own. I’m not on any lease,” he says.

That is not 'technically' homeless, or any other kind of homeless. If it was, millions of adults who move back home with their parents would be 'homeless.' Millions of spouses who aren't on the lease or deed would be 'homeless.' Millions of roommates, too -- which is, in fact, what this guy actually is.

I sympathize that the guy is in a tough spot, $70k a year is not a lot to live on in LA. But this kind of self-victimization is not helpful, Professor.

dekhn2• 2 years ago

For some reason his videos keep showing up when I watch Youtube Shorts even after I've clicked the various buttons which should suppress them. At some point, people started pointing out the problems in his argument, and he'd... post trolling videos with him responding. And the videos are just static snapshots of twitter exchanges.

Any sympathy I had for him disappeared when he started attacking folks making good points.

vinni2• 2 years ago

It says he is a lecturer. Unfortunately lecturers are not well payed. My understanding is lecturers only teach and don’t bring in research grants. Tenured professors are a different story.

tzs• 2 years ago

Maybe universities should provide housing for the lower paid teaching staff. In the case of UCLA they have on-campus housing and nearby UCLA-owned apartments for about 13000 people. Let's say they expanded that by 5%. That would be housing for 650 people.

They have around 5500 faculty members and 31000 staff members (although both of these numbers vary quite a bit from source to source), but many of the faculty are in research positions not teaching positions.

UCLA is usually reports to have a student to teacher ration of around 19:1 and around 45000 students, which would suggest about 2400 teachers, so my proposed 5% housing expansion would let them offer housing to about 1/4 of the teachers.

It would probably have be high density housing, much like typical undergraduate housing, but that should be fine. All the people in it would be doing very similar jobs, likely on very similar schedules, and with similar requirements for their home environment. The more similar you are to your neighbors the higher density can go before people want to start killing each other.

codekisser• 2 years ago

My university's dorms suffered from no AC, black mold, cockroaches, and yearly floods. I couldn't imagine if teachers and TAs had to live in such slums in addition to being given such inadequate pay. Providing housing is just treating a symptom - universities should fix this by paying their staff enough so they can even afford rent.

rahimnathwani• 2 years ago

Here is another perspective, for balance:

https://x.com/DrBrianKeating/status/1845528361013231808

kelavaster• 2 years ago

Homeless due to not having roommates like college students.. Too bad that he though he was in a higher caste of profession...

HeyTomesei• 2 years ago

What a bogus piece. He's not a Professor --- he's an entry-level Lecturer (started career there a year ago).

UCLA professor says he's homeless due to low pay

Related Stories