TIME Books

These Photographs Show What Life Is Like on $1 a Day

A new book explores extreme poverty on four continents

More than a billion people live on a dollar a day, but their lives can seem worlds apart for the more fortunate among us. In a new work of photojournalism, poverty activist Thomas A. Nazario and Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Renée Byer document the lives of the world’s most impoverished in a series of profiles, charts and photographs.

In ten chapters, Living on a Dollar a Day moves across four continents each with a focus on different issues facing those living in extreme poverty. One chapter focuses on subsistence living, another on slums. We get a bit of a respite in the chapters “And Yet the Children Play” and “Hope.” It’s at times a sad experience, though moving nonetheless.

The book also serves as a call to action. Each chapter ends with information about how readers can get involved in the fight on poverty.

“I was humbled by the grace, generosity, fortitude and bravery of the hardworking men, women, and children who allowed me into their lives,” said Byer, who is the recipient of the prestigious International Photography Award, in a press release. “I hope you’ll look deeply into these photographs and let them change your life too.”

Read next: Motor City Revival: Detroit’s Stunning Evolution in 19 GIFs

TIME Education

Poverty the Biggest Factor in Whether Students Go to College

Income was more correlated with college attendance than other demographic factors

Income level is the greatest indicator of whether a high school graduate will attend college, according to a study released Tuesday.

The National Student Clearinghouse looked at more than 3.5 million graduates of public high schools over the past several years, and found that high school graduates from schools with more poor people are significantly less likely to attend college than their counterparts at schools with majority middle-to-upper-income level students.

At low-income schools, defined as schools where more than 50% of students qualify for discounted lunch programs, the college enrollment rate ranged from 47-58% in the fall following graduation. At schools that the study categorized as “high-income,” enrollment stood at 61-73%.

The study’s sample looked at college enrollment numbers from 2013 and 2012, though the sample pool included those that graduated high school from 2010-2013.

“This report draws with bold relief the disparities in college access that are aligned with income levels in our schools,” Daniel A. Domenech, head of the American Association of School Administrators, said in a press release. “As a nation, we must do all we can to address the educational challenges facing students at low-income schools.”

Schools’ location (urban/rural/suburban) and racial demographics were less correlated with college enrollment than income, the study found, but still played a part in the probability of student enrollment in college. Within the sample of higher-income schools, for instance, students from low-minority suburban schools were significantly more likely to enroll in college following graduation than students at high-minority urban schools.

At private high schools, college enrollment was well above the average for public schools. More than 85% of private high school graduates enrolled in college immediately following graduation in 2013.

TIME Innovation

Five Best Ideas of the Day: October 9

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

1. Like Pakistan, Turkey nurtured a militant movement next door. Will ISIS enter Turkey as the Taliban made a new home in Pakistan?

By Michael M. Tanchum and Halil M. Karaveli in New York Times

2. Look homeward: America should form a new North American partnership with Canada and Mexico to tackle global challenges.

By Nicholas Burns in the Boston Globe

3. Protestors in Hong Kong and around the world can bypass government censorship with “mesh networks.”

By Gareth Tyson in the Conversation

4. Early childhood development can dramatically change a child’s life and future. Massively scaling up investment in youth could close the income and skills gaps, and accomplish much more.

By the Brookings Institution

5. Rural America has the nation’s fastest rising child poverty rate. To overcome it, we must confront the weaknesses in our economic recovery.

By the Rural Family Economic Success Action Network

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME world affairs

How Indoor Stoves Can Help Solve Global Poverty

Air pollution in China
Beijing's air pollution reached eight times World Health Organization-recommended safe levels. Anadolu Agency—Getty Images

Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center, ranking the smartest solutions to the world’s biggest problems by cost-benefit.

Clean cooking and better sources of energy can have a domino effect on health and education

Last week world leaders at the U.N. began a yearlong conversation about global goals for the next 15 years. Many will rightly talk about poverty, food, water and the environment. Few will mention energy. Yet we should.

The use of wood and coal in steam engines kicked off the Industrial Revolution, which led to today’s prosperous, modern societies. Reliable and affordable energy is just as vital for today’s developing and emerging economies. Driven mostly by its fivefold increase in coal use, China’s economy has grown eighteenfold over the past 30 years while lifting 680 million people out of poverty.

The energy ladder is a way of visualizing stages of development. This starts with what we call traditional biofuels: firewood, dung and crop waste. Almost 3 billion people use these for cooking and heating indoors, which is so polluting that the World Health Organization estimates they kill 1 in every 13 people on the planet.

The next step on the ladder is transition fuels, such as kerosene, charcoal and liquefied petroleum gas. The top rung of the ladder is electricity, which thankfully makes no pollution inside your home. Because the electricity is often powered by fossil fuels, it does contribute to the problem of global warming. Hence an alluring option could be to move to clean energy like wind, solar and hydro. Some are suggesting that developing countries should skip the fossil step and move right to clean energy. However, rich countries are already finding the move away from coal and oil to be a difficult one, and there are no easy answers for developing economies.

Today’s crucial question is: What should the world prioritize? Fifteen years ago, the world agreed upon the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals, an ambitious set of targets to tackle poverty, hunger, health and education. Those targets have directed lots of international aid and mostly led to a better world, although much still remains to be done.

For the future, some argue that we should continue pursuing the few, sharp targets from before, since we have clearly not fixed either poverty or health. Others point out that issues like the environment and social justice also need attention. My think tank, the Copenhagen Consensus, is helping bring better information to this discussion. We have asked some of the world’s top economists to make analyses within all major challenge areas, estimating the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of different targets.

So, about the almost 3 billion people cooking with dirty open fires? Should they take higher priority than the broader, long-term objective of cutting back on fossil-fuel use? It turns out there are smart ways to help on both accounts, say Isabel Galiana and Amy Sopinka, the two economists who wrote the main paper on energy.

Burning firewood and dung on open indoor fires is inefficient and causes horrendous air pollution. More than 4 million people die each year from respiratory illness because of smoke from indoor open fires. Most of them are women and young children. Women and children are also the ones who have to spend their time fetching firewood, often from quite far away. Providing cleaner cooking facilities – efficient stoves that run on liquefied gas – would improve health, increase productivity, allow women to spend time earning money and free up children to go to school.

The economic benefits of getting everyone off dung and wood are as high as the human-welfare ones: more than $500 billion each year. Costs would be much lower. Including grants and subsidies to purchase stoves, annual costs would run about $60 billion. Every dollar spent would buy almost $9 of benefits, which is a very good way to help.

The economists also provide a more realistic target, which turns out to be even more efficient. Since it is awfully hard to get to 100%, they suggest providing modern cooking fuels to 30%. This will still help 780 million people but at the much lower cost of $11 billion annually. For every dollar spent, we would do more than $14 worth of good.

While clean cooking is important, electricity can bring different benefits. Lighting means that students can study after dark and family activities can continue into the evening. Clinics can refrigerate vaccines and other medicines. Water can be pumped from wells so that women do not have to walk miles to fetch it.

The value of getting electricity to everyone is about $380 billion annually. The cost is more difficult to work out. To provide electricity to everyone, we would need the equivalent of 250 more power stations, but many rural areas might best be served by solar panels and batteries. This is not an ideal solution, but it would still be enough to make an enormous improvement in people’s lives. The overall cost is probably around $75 billion per year. That still does $5 of benefits for each dollar spent.

If we want to tackle global warming, on the other hand, there are some targets we should be wary of, whereas others are phenomenal. One prominent target suggests doubling the world’s share of renewables, particularly solar and wind, but this turns out to be a rather ineffective use of resources. The extra costs of coping with the intermittent and unpredictable output of renewables makes them expensive, and the cost is likely to be higher than the benefits.

But the world spends $544 billion in fossil-fuel subsidies, almost exclusively in developing countries. This drains public budgets from being able to provide health and education while encouraging higher CO₂ emissions. Moreover, gasoline subsidies mostly help rich people, because they are the ones who can afford a car. To phase out fossil-fuel subsidies would be a phenomenal target because it would cut CO₂ while saving money for other and better public uses. The economists estimate that every dollar in costs would do more than $15 of climate and public good.

With such high-return targets, the economic evidence shows that if carefully chosen, energy targets should definitely be part of the world’s promises for the next 15 years.

Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think tank ranking the smartest solutions to the world’s biggest problems by cost-benefit.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Culture

Poor, Disconnected and Living in the Cloud

Heather Seggel
Courtesy of Heather Seggel

When your work doesn’t demand a physical address and you’ve lost social contacts and the web of connections they provide, it’s all too easy to find yourself hovering more or less nowhere

Last week I turned 45. I may soon become homeless.

I am not the stereotypical candidate for homelessness: I have a BA in English and a small business as a copywriter. And yet, my situation says something about where we live now in California—somewhere between a real roof and a virtual one. When your work doesn’t demand a physical address and you’ve lost social contacts and the web of connections they provide, it’s all too easy to find yourself hovering more or less nowhere.

Earlier this year the trailer park in Ukiah where I’d been living for nine years went from generally sketchy to frankly unsafe. It was familiar and semi-affordable, but a rent hike combined with dangerously lax maintenance (a leaky roof, a heater that shorted out, and more mice than I felt comfortable sharing my space with) motivated me to take action. It was time to go.

I frantically looked for a place but Craigslist and newspaper classifieds turned up nothing. My aunt in Santa Rosa offered to rent me a room, though her lease would be up before long; She’s steadily advancing up a waiting list for a senior apartment. When she moves, the house will be sold and I will be out of a room.

Housing in Sonoma County is a bit more expensive than in Mendocino County where I used to live. But in both places available housing is so scarce that prices are stratospheric. A studio can run you $975 or more; anything under $750 is snapped up before it hits the market. I applied for subsidized housing at two places that required me to send paperwork by mail, and I was refused a spot on their years-long waiting lists because my income is too low. On the other hand, because I run my own business and make $500 to 700 a month writing full time, I am not eligible for unemployment.

It wasn’t a shock to learn that I’m too poor for subsidized housing. In my twenties I applied for general assistance and was turned down—but not before a social worker advised me to have a baby if I wanted public money. There has always been a net under the cliff’s edge for people in dire straits, it’s just that cliff is crumbling a lot faster than even I would have expected. What little safety net remains might catch you if you fall hard enough to lose your home and job at once. But if you work full-time and get paid poorly for it, there’s precious little for you to grab onto.

Since the Internet was turning up no new leads, I dug into The Job Hunter’s Survival Guide, a recession-specific reboot of Richard Bolles’ classic What Color is Your Parachute? The self-evaluation exercises seemed like they might be helpful, and work and housing are snugly intertwined. If nothing else, the solution-oriented focus might shore up my resolve to keep trying. The same advice comes up repeatedly in the book: Take a group of friends out to dinner and compare notes. Ask 10 family members to help you with career path evaluations. This presented a problem.

There’s no comfortable way to admit this: I don’t have 10 friends and family members, or at least not the kind Bolles is talking about. I have relatives, sure, but other than the one I’m living with, they’re scattered around the globe and we don’t see each other often. I have nobody to call or visit, to have a cup of coffee with or phone to check in about matters great and small. In practical terms, I have no friends.

I should say I have no friends IRL, or “in real life,” because I have many virtual friends online. It’s satisfying to post something I think is funny and get an affirming thumbs-up in reply, and I have found a small group on Twitter via a blog I contribute to who are engaging and kind human beings. I have my own blog as well, and a network of editors around the country for whom I work. But even if upturned thumbs were redeemable for shingles, I’d have trouble putting a roof over my head with them. And a roof in a neighborhood without friends and neighbors means depending on those clicks for more than they can provide, like warmth and empathy and two-way exchange that isn’t sterile.

I’ve tried to figure out how I ended up friendless. Years back I lost a job when my ride fell through and I couldn’t get to work. My work friends hung in with me for a while, but without the job to provide context for our relationships, they eventually faded. Working from home in a remote location never replaced those lost friends, and not long after that I ended up homeless in 2004 for just over a year. Once I’d found a place to live I worked overtime to connect with my community, but was continually rebuffed. A coworker at my first job told me point-blank, “Everyone here is done as far as socializing goes. You’ll need to look elsewhere for that.”

But I had a laptop. So I would go home and scroll through Facebook, hoping to click and be clicked in return enough times to quell my increasing anxiety. It’s not coincidental that I felt hungry pretty much all the time back then. When I shifted to writing full-time, my labor connected me to people around the country and the world, though I myself was essentially nowhere.

In this way, my fingertip grip on yet another ledge has given way, but instead of a straight drop downward, I’m afloat, a sort of ghost. My work is virtual: It’s conducted, delivered, and sometimes even reimbursed online. I say I’m in Northern California, but as a freelancer, I could be anywhere and sending work to anywhere, for a third party client even farther out in the anywhere-o-sphere. It’s nice to feel a sense of global connectedness, especially since I haven’t traveled much. But if I can’t do enough piecework to pay ever-rising rents, I can’t establish myself somewhere concrete. This, in turn, makes it nearly impossible for me to access health care or other public services, including ones dedicated to helping people find housing. It’s better than landing headfirst on the concrete, but not by much.

Policymakers would probably view my situation as a simple need for affordable housing, but what I need is more complex. Yes, I need a place to live urgently, but if I end up somewhere too far from people, stores, and a post office I can walk to, I will end up feeling like I’m in about the same place where I am now. It’s exhausting to even contemplate. This demands that I leave the emotional safety of a life spent alone, meeting my needs with large batches of zeroes and ones, and that I grow myself back into a human being apart from my USB port.

That real person, who I have yet to become, needs a community to call her own with friends (if I’m lucky), neighbors, and social access, not access ports. I still believe this can happen, but in the years since I was first without a home, the world has changed in ways that have never really let me back inside. I can’t be the only one. Surely there are enough of us in similar need to take a stand and repair these societal disconnects, but it’s not a world we can engineer by mouse-click. We may need to go outside, to reclaim the commons for conversation instead of Words With Friends.

Heather Seggel is a freelance writer. Her work has appeared in San Francisco magazine, Women’s Review of Books, UTNE, The Toast, and many other places. She is currently between homes in Northern California.

This story was originally written for Zócalo Public Square.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Innovation

Five Best Ideas of the Day: September 30

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

1. China’s real battle is for the hearts and minds of Hong Kong. And China is losing.

By Rachel Lu in Foreign Policy

2. California’s new ‘Yes means yes’ consent law is an important first step toward ending America’s campus sexual assault epidemic.

By Robin Wilson in the Chronicle of Higher Education

3. The English language makes it harder for students to learn math.

By Sue Shellenbarger in the Wall Street Journal

4. Long lines at polling places dampen turnout and disproportionately hit poor and minority communities. States must devote the resources to making voting work.

By Chris Kromm in Facing South

5. To direct financial aid where it is most needed, colleges should focus on first-generation students.

By Tomiko Brown-Nagin in TIME

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Healthcare Policy

Getting Poor to Get Help: How a Tragic Accident Trapped My Family in Poverty

Trapped in America's Safety Net
Trapped in America's Safety Net Courtesy University of Chicago Press

Campbell is the author of the new book, Trapped in America’s Safety Net: One Family’s Struggle.

When Andrea Louise Campbell's sister-in-law was horribly injured, she and her family had to spend down their money and assets to get the medical care they needed

Nearly one-third of American households live in or near poverty. The causes are myriad – and much contested. Those on the political right tend to cite the personal shortcomings of poor individuals while those on the left blame systemic barriers to upward mobility. But as my family has painfully learned, there is another shocking cause: government policy.

In February 2012 my sister-in-law Marcella was in a car accident on her way to nursing school, where she was working towards a career which she hoped would catapult her and my brother Dave into middle-class security. Instead, the accident plunged them into the world of American poverty programs. Marcella is now a quadriplegic, paralyzed from the chest down. She needs round-the-clock personal care and assistance. The only source – public or private – for a lifetime of such coverage is Medicaid. But because Medicaid is the government health insurance for the poor, she and my brother must be poor in order to qualify. (Medicare does not cover long-term supports and services, and private long-term care insurance is time-limited and useless to a 32-year-old who needs decades of care). Thus, Marcella and Dave embarked on a hellish journey to lower their income and shed their modest assets to meet the state limits for Medicaid coverage.

To meet the income requirement, my brother reduced his work hours to make just 133 percent of the poverty level (around $2,000 per month for their family). Anything he earns above that amount simply goes to Medicaid as their “share of cost” – a 100 per cent tax.

Worse: the asset limit. In California, where they live, they can own only $3,150 in assets beyond their home and one vehicle. They’re “lucky,” a social worker tells Dave: if not for the baby (Marcella was pregnant at the time of the accident; the baby miraculously survived), the asset limit would be $3,000. As if you can raise a child on $150. This asset limit was last raised in 1989. It has fallen by half in real value since then.

Dave and Marcella began to liquidate. Under California rules, retirement plans are not exempt from the asset test. Marcella had to cash in a small 401(k) account from a previous job, paying the early withdrawal penalty to boot. Dave had to abandon his hobby, working on old cars, which violated the asset test. He sold them all, keeping a 1968 Datsun pickup because its tiny value didn’t impinge on the asset limit. The pickup is 45 years old, weighs less than a Miata, and has no modern safety features. The only able-bodied adult in the family has to drive to work in an unsafe vehicle. And they had to empty their bank account, watching their hard-earned security disappear.

As Dave and Marcella spent down their assets, they had to keep track of every penny. They could only put the money into the exempt items, the house and the used wheelchair van they bought for Marcella. They could not use the money to pay credit card bills, household bills, or Marcella’s student loans from her undergraduate degree. And they are barred from doing any of the things the middle class is constantly advised to do: save for retirement. Create an emergency fund. Save for college with a tax-free 529 plan. Just $3,150 in assets – that’s it.

What happens in an emergency? One day the van’s wheelchair ramp stopped working. The repair cost $3,000—the sum of their meager assets. Fortunately their tax refund had just come in and went straight back out to pay for the repair. We don’t know what they’ll do next time.

What would help folks like Marcella and Dave?

True universal health insurance. A universal social insurance program for long-term care, not just Medicaid. And one modest change: no asset test. Policy is already trending in that direction. Under the Affordable Care Act, those newly eligible for Medicaid face no asset test. (Unfortunately those in the original eligibility categories, including the disabled like Marcella, are still under the old rule.) About half of the states have no asset test for any Medicaid recipient; perhaps someone realized that trying to ferret out the tiny amount of resources most Medicaid applicants have is inefficient. As for Dave and Marcella, I suppose they might move to a state with more generous rules. However, no state helps with wheelchair renovations. Lacking the assets to buy a new house elsewhere, they must remain in the home their friends renovated for them on an entirely volunteer basis.

It’s bad enough that America’s system of social supports is so limited. That the government also forces some of its citizens to get poor to get the help they need is an abomination.


Andrea Louise Campbell is professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She is the author of Trapped in America’s Safety Net, out this month.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Innovation

Five Best Ideas of the Day: September 19

1. China should match its massive investment in Africa with robust support for the Ebola fight.

By James Gibney in Bloomberg View

2. The market alone can’t drive advances in biomedical science. Philanthropy has a role.

By David Panzirer in Wired

3. Far from radical, the new USA Freedom Act protects citizens from government spying with better oversight and less secrecy.

By Mary McCarthy in USA Today

4. Outdated laws on debt collection and wage garnishment are crushing the working poor.

By Paul Kiel in ProPublica and Chris Arnold at National Public Radio

5. Scotlands referendum was a reassuring exercise in the ‘majesty of democracy.’

By Michael Ignatieff in the Financial Times

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

TIME poverty

Parking Meters Aren’t Going to Fix Homelessness

Real Change Movement
An example of one of the Real Change Movement's meters Real Change Movement

The converted parking meters have mixed results around the U.S.

It’s an eye-catching way to raise money and awareness about homelessness: 14 parking meters around Pasadena, Calif., all converted to collect change for those living on the streets.

In the last few weeks, Pasadena has joined several large cities around the U.S. that have set up what are essentially “homelessness meters.” They’re retrofitted parking meters that allow passersby to donate money by depositing coins or even swipe debit or credit cards. That money then goes to homelessness charities and organizations rather than directly to the homeless themselves.

“This is a clear alternative where people contributing know that all the money will go to effective services,” Bill Huang, the Pasadena housing director, told The Los Angeles Times.

Supporters say the money goes to organizations like the United Way or local homeless groups that know how to effectively use the funds for food, support and shelter and get around the possibility of that money going to drugs or alcohol. Two of Pasadena’s meters, painted bright orange and affixed with smiley faces, have reportedly raised $270 in their first three weeks. But elsewhere around the U.S., the meters have decidedly mixed results. In Orlando, for example, 15 homelessness meters have brought in just $2,027 in three years, and that was after the city spent $2,000 getting them up and running.

“I don’t know that these meters have been very effective anywhere, certainly not in Orlando,” says Jim Wright, a University of Central Florida professor who studies homelessness. “The concept was, I believe, oversold by the advocates and too rapidly embraced by politicos trying to create the impression that they were doing something significant about the homeless problem.”

Andrae Bailey, chief executive officer of the Central Florida Commission on Homelessness, which collects the money from Orlando’s meters, says they were installed in 2011 without a comprehensive homeless strategy focusing primarily on housing those in need.

“We tried to do meters without having a plan to house veterans and those with mental illness and disabilities,” Bailey says. “Anything other than a housing solution for the chronic homeless is a recipe for disaster.”

In Denver, 50 homeless meters bring in around $3,000 to $6,500 total each year, according to Denver’s Road Home, which launched the Donation Meter Program in 2007. The money goes to support services like housing, shelter, mental health and support services, says Denver’s Road Home executive director Bennie Milliner.

But some housing advocates criticize the meters as merely an attempt to reduce panhandling. Paul Boden, director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project, a collective of various West Coast homeless organizations, says that the installation of meters is often in conjunction with either increased enforcement of panhandling laws or additional legislation. Both Denver and Atlanta, which installed meters several years ago, have also worked to crack down on panhandlers.

“It’s a way to possibly reduce panhandling,” says Dennis Culhane, a University of Pennsylvania psychiatry professor who studies homelessness, adding that he doesn’t see much substantive impact from the meters on truly solving the problem of homelessness in those cities.

TIME Economy

The Poverty Rate Just Declined for the First Time Since 2006

New York City's Homeless Population Shows Sharp Rise In Last Five Years
A homeless man sleeps on a Manhattan street on Aug. 22, 2014 in New York City. Spencer Platt—Getty Images

45.3 million Americans, or 14.5% of the population, lived below the poverty line in 2013

The percentage of Americans living in poverty declined year-over-year for the first time since 2006 last year, according to a report released Tuesday by the United States Census Bureau.

45.3 million Americans, or 14.5% of the population, lived below the poverty line in 2013, down from 15% in 2012. The percentage of children under the age of 18 living in poverty declined to 19.9% in 2013, down from 21.8% the preceding year. It was the first recorded drop in childhood poverty since 2000.

The officially defined poverty threshold for a family of four in 2013 was $23,834.

Nonetheless, the report emphasized that the long-awaited declines in poverty were not quite large enough to be considered statistically significant improvements (i.e. definitively greater than a measurement error). The general findings of the report, entitled Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013, was that the measures of poverty had plateaued, with household income registering a statistically insignificant uptick to $51,939, an improvement of $180 over the previous year.


Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser